Preamble

The house met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Read a second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FRONTIER OPERATIONS (BOMBING WARNINGS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether warning is given in time to allow the removal of women, children, and other non-combatants before bombing raids by aeroplane are carried out on frontier towns and villages?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Warning was given to the Wazirs and Mahsuds, after they had rejected our terms, that they would be subjected to bombing from the air, after time had been allowed for the removal of women and children.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the practice always followed in these operations?

Sir J D. REES: And how long are the combatants likely to wait for the bombs after this warning?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think there is great objection to the use of aeroplanes for bombing women and children, and if the desired military results can be obtained without that, so much the better.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTH: But have we always followed followed this humane practice?

Mr. MONTAGU: So far as my memory serves me, since aeroplanes have been invented for bombing purposes this is the first time they have been used on the North-West frontier, and I am sure hon. Members will be glad it has been found possible to give the warning.

ARMY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Col. ASSHETON POWNALL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to state the new pension rates for Indian Army officers; and, if not, when he expects to be in a position to make such a statement?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am still awaiting the proposals of the Government of India. I have asked when I may expect to receive them, and hope they will not be much longer delayed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (CURRENCY QUESTIONS).

Mr. STEWART: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the list of Central subjects on pages 45 and 46 of Volume III. of the Appendices to the Government of India Bill and referred to on page 9, Sub-section (e), of Clause 10 of the Government of India Bill, is a fixed list and not subject to alteration by any local authority; and whether it secures that no Provincial Government of India has any power to alter or change in any way the currency of its own particular province, either as regards gold, silver, paper, or subsidiary coinage, and that a uniform currency and coinage is ensured for the whole of British India by the Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, the list of Central subjects, when embodied in rules made under Clause 1 of the Bill with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, cannot be varied except by rules similarly made, and will, therefore, not be subject to alteration by any local authority in India. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

GREEKS IN SMYRNA.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to the effect that the
Greek landing at Smyrna and its consequences have aroused anti-British feeling in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Greek occupation of Smyrna has certainly led to grave apprehensions lest the Entente contemplated a division or partition of Turkish Turkey—a policy which Indians, both Mùssulman and Hindu, and the Government of India and we who represented them in Paris have always opposed.

PEACE SETTLEMENT WITH TURKEY.

Mr. HERBERT: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Prime Minister's pledge of 5th January, 1918, with regard to the future Peace settlement with Turkey is known in India; and whether unrest in India is due to the fact that the Moslems are not certain if British policy adheres to or repudiates the pledge of the Prime Minister?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir; and I have continually urged upon the Peace Conference the importance to India of a Peace consistent with the policy contained in the speech to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BALTIC FLEET (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the complaints made by the crews of certain of His Majesty's ships in the Baltic owing to the lack of fresh provisions and of canteen. supplies; and whether any steps have been taken to improve matters?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Major HURST: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that many seamen now serving in the Baltic are ill-informed as to the objects of their service; whether he will consider the expediency of having the men enlightened as to the vital national interests involved; and whether he can hold out any hope of rewarding their service by the grant of an extra bar to the War medal or of a gratuity?

Mr. LONG: The necessary steps have already been taken in regard to this
matter. The grant of a clasp to the War medal for service in the Baltic has been approved.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May the House be informed what are the vital national interests involved in this matter, seeing that although the seamen of the Baltic fleet have been given full information the House has been told nothing?

Mr. LONG: I have dealt with the question on the Paper, and if the hon. Member wants other information he suggests he had better apply to those who framed the question.

NAVAL FORCES IN BALTIC AND BLACK SEA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what Royal Naval forces it is proposed to keep at Murmansk and the Baltic and Black Seas, respectively, during the winter?

Mr. LONG: No naval force will be kept at Murmansk during the winter. The strength of the force in the other areas mentioned, will be governed by circumstances, but in any case it is not likely to be large.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to keep naval forces in these seas during the winter?

Mr. LONG: I have already stated that our action in this matter will be governed by circumstances. If forces are kept there for precautionary purposes, I think the hon. Member will see I cannot add more to what I have said.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official account of the Battle of Jutland will be published?

Mr. LONG: It is hoped to publish this account shortly.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Having regard to the fact that the log has been lost, will the officers responsible for sending the signals be asked to supply, from memory if possible, a résumé of what the signals were?

Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend is mistaken. The logbook which was temporarily lost has been recovered.

Mr. BILLING: Will it form part of the Report?

Mr. LONG: That I cannot say.

H.M.S. "VINDICTIVE"

Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been decided with regard to the ultimate fate of His Majesty's ship "Vindictive" at Ostend?

Mr. LONG: The "Vindictive" has practically broken her back. She has been moved out of the way of navigation; but I am advised that anything more in the way of salvage will be impracticable, and her disposal is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARDS

MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (ADAPTATION).

Major GLYN: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will cause the Committee set up to investigate into the question of the adaptation of the Royal dockyards for the building of mercantile ships to consider the special circumstances of the Forth, and to take no action that will in any way interfere with the development of shipbuilding at Grangemouth and Alloa, but rather to consider how best to provide the necessary transport arrangements to enable workers at Rosyth to be employed at the existing mercantile shipyards?

Mr. LONG: It is not anticipated that any action will be taken at Rosyth which will interfere with the development of shipbuilding at Grangemouth and Alloa, as the staff at that yard will be kept fully employed on the repairs and refits of His Majesty's Fleet. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the House any information as to the result of the Prime Minister's conversations with shipowners interested in this question?

Mr. LONG: The House has already been informed of the result of the interview between the Prime Minister and certain representatives of those interested in shipbuilding, by the appointment of a Committee resided over by Lord Colwyn. That Committee is sitting now, and I have every reason to hope it will shortly make its Report.

COTTON BAG MAKING (SWEATED LABOUR).

Mr. BRIANT: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that an applicant for relief to the Lambeth Board of Guardians was employed in home work on stringing cotton bags, for which the rate of pay was 2s. 3d. per 1,000, and that the employer has admitted the correctness of this rate, and that the person concerned has earned at the rate of 2s.9frac34;d per week; and if he will order an inquiry to be made into the conditions and wages of the cotton bag-making industry, with a view to placing it under the operations of the Trades Boards Act and preventing the sweating now existing?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): My attention has not previously been called to the particular case referred to in the question, but I have already instituted inquiries into the conditions prevailing in certain textile making-up industries, including sack and bag making, with a view to the application of the Trades Boards Acts, if the inquiries show that course to be advisable.

Mr. BRIANT: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars of specific cases will he cause inquiry to be made into them?

Sir R. HORNE: If the hon. Member will supply particulars it will be very helpful to us.

LETCHWORTH ENGINEERING WORKS (DISCHARGES).

Mr. A. SHORT: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the action of engineering employers in Letchworth in continually importing men from other centres and discharging them shortly afterwards for various reasons; whether he is aware that men are induced to transfer to Letchworth, taking their families with them, with no guarantee of permanent employment; that, in consequence of the discharges taking place, and the fresh arrivals of workmen, an acute house famine exists; that there is reason to believe the existence of a compact between the engineering employers in Letchworth not to engage any man previously employed by a Letchworth firm; and whether he can take any action in this matter?

Sir R. HORNE: My attention has been called to a resolution which was recently forwarded by the Letchworth Trades and Labour Council to the Letchworth Employment Committee with regard to this matter. The Letchworth Employment Committee have appointed a sub-committee of three, consisting of the chairman and representatives of workpeople and employers respectively, to investigate and report upon the subject. I will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).

Captain LOSEBY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will inform the House of the main causes of the delay in granting training facilities to the many ex-soldier applicants; and if, in view of the disastrous results produced by these delays, he will take drastic steps in the direction of expediting this training?

Sir R. HORNE: The main cause of the delay in providing training for disabled ex-Service men is the lack of sufficient training institutions. Every endeavour is being made to expedite the acquisition of the additional premises required.

Captain LOSEBY: 18.
asked if more than 6,000 ex-soldiers have applied for grants for training in agriculture, if only 2,000 have been sanctioned, if steps of any kind were taken to assist the unsuccessful applicants; and what were the general grounds which prompted the Department to refuse sanction to such a large proportion of applicants?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The total number of applications received under the Officers' Agricultural Training Scheme for England and Wales is 5,380; grants were made in 1928 cases, or almost exactly 40 per cent of the applications. The number of grants is restricted, partly on financial grounds and partly because the openings in agriculture in this country are not unlimited, especially for applicants with little or no capital.
The Board notify the Ministry of Labour of every case in which a grant for agricultural training is refused, in order that the applicant may have an opportunity of being trained for some other industry.
The Board are considering whether the Treasury should be approached to authorise an increase of the number of training allowances, in view, particularly, of the openings in agriculture overseas.

Captain LOSEBY: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of ex-soldiers now awaiting training under his Department; if the object of this training is to enable them to earn their livelihood; and what allowances are made to them whilst they are awaiting training?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of names on the list of disabled ex-Service men awaiting training is about 20,000. The object of the training is to enable the disabled men to be absorbed in skilled industries at standard rates of pay. No training allowances are made by the Ministry of Labour to men awaiting training. During this period the disabled man is, however, entitled to unemployment donation, together with his disability pension.

Captain LOSEBY: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if many officers nominally in receipt of training grants who accepted training in reliance on pledges given to them, and who are entirely dependent upon grants promised, are not paid in some cases for lengthy periods of time; and if he will take such steps as will render the continuance of hardships of this description impossible?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware that, as a general rule, serious delays are now occurring either in giving decisions on applications for training grants or in making payment by monthly instalments of the grants awarded for maintenance. 1t is true that such grants are not normally paid in advance, but in necessitous cases half the first month's grant may be so paid. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any specific cases which he has in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Colonel BURN: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if the period of instruction for disabled Service men in commercial education can be extended beyond the three months laid down by regulation?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware that the period of instruction for disabled ex-Service men in commercial education is limited to three months by any of the regulations governing the schemes administered by the Ministry of Labour. Perhaps the hon. and
gallant Member will write to me explaining what particular regulation he has in mind.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it has been decided to increase the hours of training to eight per day of trainees at the Caudron Works, Cricklewood; if so, whether many of the men have to travel long distances and, in consequence of their disabilities, experience great difficulty in getting to and fro, especially during the busy hours in the morning and evening; that the institution of an eight-hour day will mean that many of the men will be from home thirteen hours per day; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?

Sir R. HORNE: The decision to fix a forty-hour working week at the Cricklewood Government instructional factory was arrived at in consultation with the London Local Technical Advisory Committee for the Building Trades. It is essential, in the interests of the trainees, that the conditions of training should prepare them for the conditions of employment. The hours of work and other conditions of training are considerably lighter than those current in the trades in which the men will be employed upon the completion of their training. The forty hours are divided into five days of eight hours each, thus leaving the whole of Saturday free. In allocating trainees to training centres every endeavour is made to place men as near to their homes as possible. The hon. Member will realise that employés in the building trade often have to undertake considerable daily journeys to and from work.

CLERICAL WORKERS (BONUSES).

Sir A. YEO: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the addition to Section 8 of the Industrial Courts Act which definitely classes clerical workers as workmen, it is the intention of the Government that these Section 8 clerical workers shall receive the increased cost of living bonuses ordered to be paid to workmen to assist them to meet the increased cost of living?

Sir R. HORNE: Advances in wages to meet the increased cost of living have been granted to numerous classes of workers, including certain clerical workers, by arbitration awards. These awards, as
the hon. Member is aware, apply only to the parties to the arbitration. There is no power under the Industrial Courts Act by which the Government can direct that the various bonuses or advances shall apply to all clerical workers.

JUTE CANVAS.

Mr. WALLACE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will order an inquiry into the cause of the very serious decrease in the production of jute canvas in Dundee, in view of the fact that the lack of adequate supplies of canvas is causing serious dislocation and unemployment in other industries dependent upon this material?

Sir R. HORNE: Some decrease in production may have followed the recent reduction of hours, but matters will, I hope, be adjusted as the industry by degrees adapts itself to the new conditions. If the hon. Member considers that other causes are operative in reducing output I shall be glad to have further details which will be immediately investigated by my Department.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reduction in output amounts to 33⅓ per cent?

Sir R. HORNE: No. I have had no particular figure put upon it.

MOULDERS' STRIKE.

Major HILLS: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can tell the House the present position of the moulders' strike?

Sir R. HORNE: This strike, as the hon. and gallant Member will recollect, is a strike against an award of the Court of Arbitration, and began on 20th September. On the 10th October negotiations took place between the Engineering Employers' Federation and the societies, and a Memorandum of proposed terms of settlement was arrived at and signed by the federation and by the members of the executives of the societies, who undertook to submit the proposed terms to their members. A ballot took place, and the proposals were rejected. I understand the present position is that the employers have offered to meet the representatives of the societies to resume the discussion
at the point at which it was left at the conclusion of the negotiations on 11th October. The employers have suggested that, in view of the adverse ballot which took place after the October conference, the representatives of the unions should place themselves in a position to be able to make a recommendation to their members in the event of any further conference arriving at a basis for general resumption. This suggestion has not yet been adopted by the societies. The whole position has been under my constant and careful consideration, and I can assure the hon. Member that no opportunity will be lost of taking any steps which might appear likely to lead to a settlement.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman wrong when he says that the moulders' strike is a strike against an award? That is not true.

Sir R. HORNE: This may be a matter of controversy, but I have never heard it disputed before. Undoubtedly it was a strike against an award of the Interim Court of Arbitration, and was so recognised by the other societies which were involved.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the iron moulders gave notice to withdraw from the original agreement, and asked for an advance of 15s., according to the instructions of their own executive?

Sir R. HORNE: I think my hon. Friend is confusing two things. They appeared before a Court of Arbitration and got an award which was operative for the next four months. Some time after that award had been granted they presented a subsequent intimation that they were going to withdraw from their agreement, but that withdrawal could only begin to be operative after the expiry of the award.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. 2) BILL.

Major HILLS: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Hours of Employment (No. 2) Bill is to he proceeded with before the Adjournment?

Sir R. HORNE: It will not be practicable to proceed with this Bill before the Adjournment. Conversations are still taking place with regard to some of the trades affected.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS (CONSTITU- TION).

Major HILLS: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the constitution of the Industrial Courts?

Sir R. HORNE: I regret that I am not yet in [...], position to make an announcement on this matter.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEM- PLOYMENT).

Mr. W. THORNE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of funds which have accumulated under Part II. of the National Insurance Act?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount of funds which have accumulated under Part II. of the National Insurance Act is £19,075,000. Payments totalling this amount have from time to time been made to the National Debt Commissioners for investment on account of the Unemployment Fund pursuant to Section 92 (3) of the Act.

Mr. THORNE: Does that total sum include the interest upon investment or is it plus the interest on investment?

Sir R. HORNE: It includes everything. It is the whole fund at the present time out of which unemployment benefit can be paid.

Mr. THORNE: In face of that huge sum, is not the right hon. Gentleman in a position to extend the proposal before the House and make it 15s. a week?

Sir R. HORNE: No. My hon. Friend will understand that the 11s. which is proposed to be paid is based upon the accumulated funds which are in existence.

RETAIL TRADERS' LICENCES.

Mr. BRIANT: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour when the system of licences for retail traders is to be abandoned; and what object can now be served by a continuance of a system which impedes the progress of business?

Sir R. HORNE: It has been decided to bring the operation of this Order to an end on 31st December next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

CONCRETE BUILDINGS.

Captain R. TERRELL: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is taking any action in respect of the proposals for the construction of concrete cottages which are being submitted to him?

The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Tudor Walters—for Dr. Addison): Yes, Sir. An expert committee appointed by me to consider and report on the questions of standardisation and methods of construction in house building have approved twenty-five different methods of building cottages in concrete, and I am urging local authorities to adopt concrete construction where suitable materials are available. Tenders for some 400 concrete houses have been approved by my Department, and a number of other proposals for the erection of houses to be constructed of concrete are included among the house plans which have been approved but which have not yet reached the stage of tenders.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. A. SHORT: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the respective prices before the War of bricks, cement, and other materials required in the building of houses and the prices at present prevailing?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): Owing to the extent to which prices vary according to locality and quality of material, it is impossible to do more than make a very general comparison, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. Friend with such information as the Department possesses.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the prices of building materials have doubled within the last eight months, and in those circumstances, having regard to the fact that that has happened after the War, will not the Department see if something cannot be done to ascertain the reason for this doubling of prices?

Mr. HOPE: The question asked was with regard to pre-war prices and present prices. I should require notice as to the prices eight months ago.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MANUAL).

Major BARNES: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the dis-
cussions which will shortly take place in the House relative to the standards of housing construction, he will place in the hands of each Member of the House a copy of the Manual prepared by the Ministry of Health for the guidance of local authorities in the preparation of housing schemes?

Sir T. WALTERS: Copies of the Manual have already been supplied to all members of the Housing Group, which comprises a large number of Members of the House, but I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Vote Office, so that other hon. Members may obtain copies if they so desire.

Major BARNES: When will the Second Reading of the Housing Bill take place?

Sir T. WALTERS: That is not a question for a mere Paymaster-General, but for the Prime Minister.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does that give the number of cubic feet in the standard house, and is there any alternative to the standard house in case we find we have not money enough to build the standard house?

Sir T. WALTERS: The object of the Manual is not to provide specific plans to which everyone must build, but to give a guide to the method of design, and each architect is expected to use his intelligence to adapt the particular method of design to the locality in which the houses are to be built.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will the standard which will be submitted to these architects for their guidance be a standard of cubic feet, and will the Department permit any alternative scheme to their standard?

Sir T. WALTERS: The standard is not one of cubic feet, but of accommodation—so many rooms of a certain size.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST CITIZENS.

OUTRAGE IN LIVERPOOL.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the had effect produced upon native opinion by the report of the outrage committed in broad day in Liverpool upon three British citizens of the Gold Coast, followed by no reparation,
the Government are prepared to consider whether it would be most expedient to allay the feeling thus aroused by making an offer of reasonable monetary compensation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Yes, Sir; the Government are considering the matter.

OFFICERS REMOVED FROM ACTIVE LIST.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the reasons for the removal in 1918, before the Armistice, of Lieutenant-Colonel G. S. Haines from the active list?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I do not think it is desirable, as a general rule, to state, in answers to questions, the reasons for the removal of officers from the active list, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case.

CHURCH PARADES.

Mr. GILBERT: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the question of church parades -which now exist in the Army; and whether, in view of the objection of both officers and men to this form of Sunday duty, he can see his way to abolish the present practice or whether it can be modified in any way so that men are not compelled to attend this duty?

Captain GUEST: It is not considered desirable to amend the King's Regulations as regards compulsory attendance at church parades. I will see, however, whether anything can be done to shorten the perliminary inspection.

QUEDLIMBURG PRISONERS OF WAR CAMP.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement that Belgian soldiers have recently arrived at Mons who have only just escaped from a German prisoners of war camp at Quedlimburg, in the Harz Mountains; and
whether, in view of their statement, that there are still a number of Allied prisoners of war in that camp, he will have immediate inquiries made?

Major HURST: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that hopes have been aroused in the families of missing soldiers by an allegation published in the Press on the 28th November, to the effect that a number of Allied prisoners of war were still confined at Quedlimburg, in the Harz Mountains; and whether he will make a definite statement on this subject?

Captain GUEST: The British Military Mission in Berlin has been asked to investigate immediately this story about Quedlimburg, but I am afraid it is most improbable that anything will come of it—at any rate so far as British prisoners of war are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

SIGNAL SERVICE.

Mr. CAIRNS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Army Order 365, of the 17th October, 1919, provided for the release of men in the Signal Service by a date not later than the 15th instant; whether he is aware that expert Post Office telegraphists are being retained with the Royal Engineers at Maresfield Park camp quite unnecessarily, and that many of these men are being employed upon useless fatigues and have performed no signal work for over twelve months; whether these men are held to be covered by an amendment to Army Order 365, which excluded men of the Signal Service personnel; and whether, in view of the waste of force which is taking place in this camp, he will order their immediate demobilisation?

Captain GUEST: Army Order 365 does not provide for the release of any men by a date not later than the 15th November, but a letter was issued concurrently ordering the immediate demobilisation of Royal Engineer personnel at home with certain exceptions, including the Signal Service. This restriction, which does not in any way override the provisions of the Army Order, will be removed as soon as possible.
I understand that there are two Post Office telegraphists employed at Mares-field Park camp. One of these has just
been withdrawn from a camp post office and is awaiting posting to a unit where he will be employed at his trade. The other is being employed on regimental duties.

WINE AND SPIRITS (DELIVERIES).

Colonel ASHLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister why a wine merchant is not allowed to deliver wine or spirits to a customer till the amount due for the goods has been received?

Mr. HOPE: I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed by the Central Control Board that the prohibition in question has for some time past formed part of the standard Order of the Central Control Board. As I have previously stated, I understand there will be no change in the policy of the Board pending the establishment of the new Authority, which it is proposed to create by legislation.

Colonel ASHLEY: Seeing that the Armistice was concluded many months ago, what possible justification is there for this autocratic ordinance during peace, that a man cannot order a dozen of port from his wine merchant without sending the money beforehand?

Mr. HOPE: I speak for the Central Control Board only by accident. I will inquire what is their reason.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will my hon. Friend convey my remarks to the Central Control Board?

Mr. HOPE: Certainly.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does my hon. Friend realise that the continuance of the Regulation causes inconvenience to people who desire to give presents to people who are ill?

Mr. HOPE: I have myself experienced the inconvenience of the Regulations, but as a humble member of the Government I thought I ought not to complain.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the Central Control Board want the Board dissolved as speedily as possible?

CONDITIONS OF LIVING, COLOGNE.

Sir P. MAGNUS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the shortage of food and
conditions of living are much worse in Cologne and in the German territory occupied by the Allied forces than in other parts of Germany; whether the German Government are themselves responsible for those conditions and have helped to create them, with a view to rendering the occupation and the occupying Allies unpopular; and whether the British Government can adopt measures to remove the impression that it is owing to any action of the Allies that the people in the occupied territories are compelled to live under such unfavourable conditions?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. On the contrary, our information tends to show that the conditions are better in Cologne and in the occupied territory than in unoccupied Germany, and have been since our occupation. This also applies to the territory occupied by our Allies.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Lieut. Commander H. YOUNG: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be able to announce the policy of the Government with regard to the creation of a Ministry of Supply; and whether he will take into consideration the expenditure involved by the creation of this new Ministry?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision has yet been taken on this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the question before a decision is taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Our announcement of intention will be made in time to enable the House to have an opportunity if it so desires.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Major O'NEILL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to arrange that questions to the Chief Secretary for Ireland shall in future be taken first on Thursdays?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been arranged that on Thursdays, questions addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland shall be taken second on the Paper—after those addressed to the Minister of Pensions.

Major O'NEILL: Will that give a clear opportunity for verbal answers to the questions before the Prime Minister answers his questions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked through what happened previously, and judging by that there will be such an opportunity.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: As the question of the Ministry of Health was also discussed at the same time, does the fact that the questions addressed to the Ministry of Health come early on the Paper to-day mean that they will regularly be taken early on Wednesday afternoons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That was the arrangement that was proposed.

SELF-GOVERNMENT (IRELAND).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if any pledge of any kind was given by him to the American representatives at the Peace Conference, that, in consideration of the question of Irish self-government not being dealt with at the Conference, the Government would as soon as possible after the signing of the Peace Treaty settle the Irish question on the basis of Home rule?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that no pledge of any description was given with regard to Ireland to the President of the United States?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given is a most definite reply to the supplementary as well as to the original question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why was this assurance not given?

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULA TION BILL.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Imports and Exports Bill?

Mr. WALLACE: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can yet state the date
upon which the Second Reading of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not able today to name the day.

Mr. TERRELL: In view of the very great importance and interest which is being taken in this matter can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to give it a very early date?

Sir H. DALZIEL: In view of the large amount of business which the House already has before that will the right hon. Gentleman not favourably consider the suggestion of postponing the Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite aware of the interest and also of the importance. We have not yet come to a decision and I cannot give a date until we do.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Would it not be better for the Government to acknowledge now that this is a bad Bill and climb down gracefully by dropping it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be quite ready to make that acknowledgment if I thought so.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill to be discussed in Committee of the whole House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not propose to take the course suggested in the question.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider this matter ought to be discussed on the floor of this House, and not upstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not, and for this reason: There is an amount of legislation still in front of us to which the Government, and the Members who support the Government, are pledged, and it would make it impossible to carry it through if Bills were taken in Committee on the floor of the House.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there any precedent for a taxing Bill being sent to a Committee upstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I fancy there may be. I think there are precedents even in this Session, for many Bills have been sent upstairs.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps Mr. Speaker might give his opinion in regard to this, as to whether that part of the Bill falls within the scope of Bills arising in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That question reminds me that Mr. Speaker has said he would consider this. Any answer I give is based on the intention of the Government; but, of course, we shall be ready to acquiesce in any decision of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman leave to a free vote of the House whether this Bill should be taken here or upstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly we would not do that. The Government is responsible for carrying through the legislation to which they are pledged, and they would not do anything which prevents them from redeeming their pledge.

MEDALS FORFEITED.

Colonel ASHLEY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider a modification of Article 1,236 of the Royal Warrant, so that medals earned in the Great War shall not be necessarily forfeited in the case of a man found subsequently guilty by court-martial of desertion or fraudulent enlistment, unless the offence occurred on active service; and if his record in the Great War makes him worthy of this consideration?

Captain GUEST: The question of the forfeiture and restoration of medals is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

SINKING OF GERMAN WARSHIPS.

Sir F. HALL: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if Germany has declined to agree to the terms imposed by the Allied Supreme Council in reparation for the sinking of her battleships in contravention of the provisions of the Armistice; if in this and other respects the German Government are seeking to repudiate their responsibilities under the Peace Treaty; if this attitude has been most marked since it became known that there was a probability of the American Senate refusing to accept the
Treaty; and whether, notwithstanding the position taken up by the United States in the matter, the Allies intend to take practical steps to enforce compliance with the Treaty, as repeated verbal protests have failed to compel Germany to observe her obligations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government have no further information beyond the statements which appeared in the Press yesterday.

MESOPOTAMIA (SERVICE LEAVE).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men serving in Mesopotamia who enlisted early in 1916, and should have been on their way home by the 1st November, are still beinp refused any information as to their date of embarkation; whether the return of men in Mesopotamia who are eligible for demobilisation, is being carefully watched; and whether he will have a close inquiry made on the spot?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Blackpool.

DRAGOON GUARDS.

Captain BROWN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to reduce the number of Dragoon Guard Regiments from seven to four; and, if so, in what way this redaction is to take place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SHIPPING FOR BLACK SEA PORTS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many ships are at present employed in bringing back Army stores and salvage from France and the tonnage of these ships; and whether he will arrange for a conference with the Minister of Shipping and the Minister for Food and leading grain importers with a view to the suspension of these ships' employment at their present task that they may be sent to the Black Sea with
merchandise, whereof the populations in these parts are in urgent need, and freighted on the return journey with grain with which the granaries of the Black Sea ports are overloaded?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a matter for the Ministry of Shipping, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend would address his question to that. Department.

SUPERPHOSPHATES.

Mr. HARRY HOPE: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the necessity for securing a full supply of superphosphates, he will take steps to enable phosphate rock from Algiers being imported, instead of the low grade and inferior quality of phosphate rock at present being brought in from America?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Arrangements have already been made for the importation of phosphate rock from Algiers and Tunis which will bring up the total deliveries from these countries to the United Kingdom, to 277;000 tons during 1919. Arrangements have also been discussed with the French authorities for the delivery of a substantially larger quantity during 1920. The matter is receiving the close attention of the Board.

BACON.

Mr. REMER: 73
asked the Food Controller (1) what has been the cost to the nation both from the deterioration in quality and from depreciation in value through the renewed control of bacon;
(2) what is the average price paid by the British Government for bacon prior to 9th August; and what is the price paid since that date;
(3) what were the reasons for re-controlling bacon on 9th August?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): There has been no deterioration in the quality or depreciation in the value of bacon which can in any way be attributed to the renewal of control. The reasons for renewing control in August were set out fully in an answer given to the hon. Member for Plaistow on 27th November. Briefly, control was renewed in order to break the continued increase in prices against the consumers in this country which was a feature of the period of decontrol and the saving to the consumers, after allowing for all wastage caused by the un-co-ordinated shipments
arranged by private importers during that period is immeasurable. As the Ministry is now buying bacon in open competition on the American market, it would not be in the public interest to give the hon. Member details as to the average, price paid for bacon prior to the 9th August, and the price paid since that date.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman an Advisory Committee to advise him on this question?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr. REMER: Did he take their advice before he de-controlled bacon?

Mr. ROBERTS: I carefully considered the advice given to me, but I reserved to myself the right to accept it or not.

Mr. REMER: I beg to give notice that I shall refer to this question on the Adjournment this evening.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people would rather pay more money and get better bacon?

CATTLE FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. REMER: 74.
asked the Food Controller what is the name of the present director of supplies in the cattle foodstuffs section of the Ministry of Food; what is the date of the resignation from this office of Mr. Lionel Lillico; what is the amount of tonnage of foodstuffs transferred or sold to the firm of Messrs. W. Lillico and Sons, of London, prior to his resignation and since; and what are the reasons for such transfer or sale?

Mr. ROBERTS: There is now no director of supplies in the cattle feeding-stuffs section of the Ministry of Food. This section was incorporated in the oils and fats branch of the Ministry last June. Mr. Lionel Lillico did not resign the office of director of supplies. He became chief technical adviser to the section in an honorary capacity when the section was merged in the oils and fats branch. At the time when the distribution of cattle feeding-stuffs was under Government control allocations to the trade were made by a committee of the trade, and Messrs. William Lillico and Sons received a proportionate allocation. Since controlled distribution ceased this firm has, in competition with the trade, purchased some 2,000 tons of cotton meal from Government stocks at market prices.

Mr. REMER: Have Messrs. W. Lillico and Sons ever dealt in cattle foodstuffs previously?

Mr. ROBERTS: I should require notice of that question.

MILK.

Mr. J. A. PARKINSON: 77.
asked the Food Controller whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government that local authorities should be empowered to undertake the supply of milk within their areas; and whet[...]the Inter-Departmental Committee whose appointment was announced on 2nd July has yet reported on the subject?

Sir T. WALTERS: I have been asked to reply to tins question. The Committee referred to will, I am told, be in a position to report shortly. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to the reply given on 2nd July to the hon. Member for Horncastle on the same subject.

Lieut.-Colonel WEIGALL: 78.
asked whether, in the event of milk prices being reviewed, the Associated Milk Producers' Council will be consulted before any final decision is arrived at?

Mr. ROBERTS: I shall he very glad to consider any views; with regard to the cost of [...]production winch the Associated milk Producer's Council may wish to Communicate to me.

POTATOES.

Major BARNES: 79.
asked the Food Controller what was the total amount of the potato crop this year; what was the average price paid to the grower in 1914 and 1919; and what was the price charged by the Government to the wholesale potato merchant?

Mr. ROBERTS: Figures of the total amount of the potato crop this year are not available; but I am informed that the acreage under potatoes this year was 476,050 acres in England and Wales and 154,550 in Scotland. The average growers' price in 1914 was about 70s. per ton, and in 1919, about £ per ton. The Government have not bought potatoes from wholesale potato merchants.

EXPORTS FROM RUSSIA.

Mr. J. A. PARKINSON: 8.
asked whether any exports from Russia have reached these shores through the Black
Sea during the present year; if so, what is the total tonnage and total value of such Russian exports; and whether an increase of such trade is expected in the near future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A Geddes): During the first eleven months of the present year, 11,605 tons of merchandise valued at £1,368,207, consigned from Russia and shipped from ports on the Black Sea, were registered as imported into the United Kingdom. There is reason to hope that, in the near future, there will be a considerable increase in this trade.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is Russia in a position to ship grain from the Black Sea ports?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, not in heavy quantities. There have been one or two small parcels, more in the nature of samples, but there are internal difficulties in Russia which prevent grain export.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ARREST OF ESCAPED BRITISH PRISONERS.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 61.
asked the Secretary for War whether the three soldiers recently released from captivity in Moscow were arrested by a military policeman on their arrival in Hull; whether they were confined for the night in cells in the police station; whether they were refused newspapers and their freedom; and, if so, what is the reason for this treatment, and will these men be set at liberty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer at the same time two private notice questions on the same subject. I regret that a mistake should have been committed in this case owing to a misunderstanding of the expression "escaped prisoners" which occurred in the telegram received from Helsingfors about these men, and was repeated in the War Office message. Orders were, of course, issued at the earliest moment to send these men on leave to their homes.

[The Private Notice Questions were:

Mr. LUNN: To ask the Prime Minister whether Privates Richards, pickard and Davison, ex-prisoners from Russia, on arrival at Hull on 29th November, were handed over to the military police; whether they were then kept over the
week end in military cells at the police station; whether for two days they were allowed no papers, were fed on Army rations, and were not allowed to smoke, or to see their friends and relations; whether these men are now detained in hospital, and for what reason; and whether the arrest and detention of these men represents the considered policy of His Majesty's Government towards returned prisoners of war, or was it the act of an irresponsible official; and what steps is it proposed to take in this matter?

Mr. HAROLD BRIGGS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has knowledge that the three Privates, Davidson, Pickard and Richards, who have recently been released by the Bolshevists and handed over to the British authorities by Mr. Litvinoff, have been detained by tine Military Police, and are not permitted either to see or communicate with their relatives, and does he consider such action is justifiable or lawful?]

Sir C. KNLOCH-COOKE: Is it possible for a. Minister to answer a private notice question at the same time as a starred question? Is it not the rule that private notice questions cannot be given on a subject covered by a question on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: Private notice was given of two questions with regard to a matter already on the Paper. I do not see anything improper in it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has an apology been sent to the men in question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Mr. CLYNES: Will any consideration be given to these men in the form of some recompense?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to give any undertaking. I share my right hon. Friend's feelings of regret that men returning from hard service and misfortune abroad should have met with so unceremonious and chilling a welcome on their arrival in their native land.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what actually happened?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have done so. By mistake they were detained in Hull by the police authorities, but as soon as the mis-
take was known and telegrams could be sent stating the facts, they were released on leave and sent to their homes.

Mr. ROSE: Are any steps being taken to punish the people who made this mistake?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not quite understand how the hon. Member can at one moment be so fall of sympathy for these men, and so full of malevolence towards people who may unwittingly have made a mistake.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If these men were escaped prisoners from Russia, what reason was there for arresting them and putting them in the cells?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If they had been described as escaped prisoners of war escaping from the enemy, no doubt the mistake would not have arisen; but they were described as escaped prisoners.

Mr. DEVLIN: Was not the whole thing caused by the belief that these men were in Ireland?

FISHERIES EDUCATION.

Mr. IRVING: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will be prepared to make Grants from money placed at their disposal by the Treasury from the Development Fund for the purpose of aiding local sea fisheries authorities in England and Wales to extend and systematise fisheries education in their districts?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have no Grants at their disposal for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member, but they are considering the whole question of the training and education of fishermen, with a view to discussing it with the Board of Education.

Mr. IRVING: Can the Department not treat agriculture and fisheries alike, seeing that they are responsible for both? You have found money for educations for agricultural purposes, and refused it to the fishery side. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is fair treatment?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have not refused it. We have taken up the question with the Board of Education.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

4TH BLACK WATCH (PRIVATE ROBERTSON).

Mr. WILKIE: 66.
asked the Pensions Minister whether Private A. Robertson, No. 2619, 4th Black Watch, died on 5th December last of pneumonia; whether he was wounded an inch from the heart in May, 1915, and so severely wounded in the leg at the battle of Loos in September, 1915, that it had to be amputated; whether a Dundee doctor has certified that the hardships he had undergone during the recent War and the wounds received lowered his resisting powers and so contributed towards his death; whether that certificate and a recommendation by the Dundee War Pensions Committee that the widow should receive full pension have been ignored and the widow awarded a pension of 8s. 3d. weekly; whether no provision is being made for the deceased man's six children, the eldest thirteen years of age and the youngest twins two years of age; whether he is aware that the widow, who is unable to work, has been compelled to apply for Poor Law relief; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Mrs. Robertson and her children will be adequately provided for?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The case of Private Robertson has been carefully considered by my medical advisers, who are unable to find any connection between his death and the wounds he had received many years previously. In these circumstances, the only award that can be made is a pension under Acticle 17 of the Royal Warrant, at half the rate of the pension held by the husband in his lifetime.

DECEASED EX-SERVICEMEN'S DEPENDANTS, DUNDEE.

Mr. WILKIE: 67.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will state the number of pensions which have been awarded under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant on Pensions; whether there is no provision made for the children of deceased ex-Service men in that article; whether widows and children in Dundee are being forced to seek Poor Law relief because of the inadequate provision made for them; whether strong protests, have been received by the Minister of Pensions from the Dundee Parish Council against widows and children of ex-Service men
being thrown on the mercy of the Poor Law instead of being provided for by the Government; and whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction which is being expressed at the treatment of the dependants of men who have fought for the country, it is proposed to amend the Royal Warrant on Pensions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Up to 30th September 318 pensions have been granted under Article 17. These pensions are granted to widows of men who have died after discharge from causes unconnected with their service.

HALF-FARE VOUCHERS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 68.
asked the Pensions Minister, in view of the fact that the question has been under consideration for some months, whether he is now in a position to announce that half-fare vouchers will be issued to discharged men undergoing treatment to enable them to return home on leave?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I cannot make any announcement on this question.

Colonel ASHLEY: If I put down a question next week, could I have an answer?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will try, but this is a matter which affects other Government Departments as well as the Pensions Ministry, and I am not sure that I can answer next week.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (FORFEITURE).

Colonel ASHLEY: 69.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that disability pensions are similar in nature to payments made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Government has now decided to take steps to free such pensions from liability to forfeiture on the recipient being convicted of a serious offence?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have now considered this matter, and I have given directions which will ensure that, while the pension of the man himself will be suspended during the term of imprisonment, the wife and children of the pensioner will continue to draw their allowances. I also propose to modify the present practice with regard to the probationary period which, in many cases, is required to elapse before the pension is
restored. In future, except in the extreme case of conviction for treason, the pension will be restored immediately on the man's release from imprisonment.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will it come into force?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It shall come into force as soon as the administrative instructions have been given. I should think in about a fortnight or so.

MEDICAL OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: 70.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among the salaried medical officers employed by the Ministry regarding their rates of remuneration; whether medical officers holding administrative positions, such as deputy-commissionerships, and other full-time medical officers, are receiving a lower rate of remuneration than the medical officers employed by the Session, over whom they exercise authority; and whether he proposes to take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Major JOHN EDWARDS: 71.
asked the Pensions Minister whether medical officers on sessional duties at the Ministry of Pensions medical boards have had their rate of pay raised by 50 per cent. since 6th October; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the remainder of the medical staff who are employed on other duties on a sessional basis because they have not been given a similar increase in remuneration, and that the salaried whole-time medical officers, who are precluded from any other form of medical practice, are thereby put into a position of financial inferiority to those working even four days a week on a sessional basis at, the revised salaries; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this disparity between the two sections of sessionally employed medical men as well as the inequality suffered by whole-time officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The medical officers employed by the Ministry may be assured that the matters referred to in these questions are receiving consideration.

DISABLED OFFICERS.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 72.
asked the Pensions Minister whether a revision of pensions to disabled officers is under con-
sideration; whether he is aware of the evidence submitted to the Pensions Committee to the effect that a large number of disabled officers are existing in conditions of starvation or semi-starvation; and whether there is any prospect of a substantial increase being granted with retrospective effect?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the hon. Member is aware, the position of disabled officers is being investigated by the Select Committee. I cannot anticipate their Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

RETAIL PRICES, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Major BARNES: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures showing how the retail price of coal in Newcastle is made up, showing separately the cost price to the merchant, the cost of handling, and the cost of delivery?

Sir A. GEDDES: In Newcastle-on-Tyne separate retail prices are fixed for different classes of coal. The margin allowed to the merchant is 8s. per ton, the items being:



per ton.


Cost of handling
1s.


Cost of carting and delivery
5s. 6d.


Allowance for management, office expenses, and profit
1s. 6d.

Coal which cost the merchant 33s. per ton (including railway charges) would be sold by retail at 41s. per ton.

HOUSEHOLD COAL.

Mr. ROYCE: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that notices have been sent from the Swanwick collieries regretting that after 1st December it will not be possible, owing to the action of the Government., to supply any coal other than coal for industrial purposes; whether these notices have been sent to coal clubs and mutual benefit coal supply associations who are registered for their members' household coal supplies with this colliery, and who are now in difficulties as to the source from which to obtain supplies of coal; and what steps he proposes to take to meet the situation?

Mr. HOPKINS: 87.
asked why, if the cost of the reduction of 10s. per ton in the
price of domestic fuel is derived from the profits on exports, colliery owners are refusing to supply merchants with other than industrial coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: A number of the collieries, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston, represented that owing to financial difficulties they would be unable to continue the supply of household coal at the reduced prices. Steps are being taken to meet financial difficulties resulting from the reduction, and in the meantime the collieries in question have been instructed to continue normal working and distribution, and I have no doubt that they will carry out the instructions.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Government are subsidising these mines?

Sir A. GEDDES: No. I have explained fully to the House that the subsidy which is required to meet the expenses of the collieries which are working at a loss is drawn not from the taxpayers, but from the profits on the coal which is exported.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is there any prospect of reducing the price of ocean-going coal as well as export coal, seeing the bearing that that has upon the price of food in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: There is no prospect of reducing the price of export coal. The other matter, as I have explained, is under consideration.

Mr. HOPKINS: What arrangements have been made as to the payment of the 10s? Is it to be to the colliery owners or the merchants?

Sir A. GEDDES: To the colliery owners.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of export coal is creating a great deal of feeling between this country and France?

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member's information, I think, must be incomplete, because the French are getting the coal at present at a lower rate than neutrals.

Mr. HURD: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many colliery-owners are now working their collieries at a loss; whether they have already had to find a large amount of
capital to meet the costs due to the Sankey Award and the Controller's war wages, the latter not being adjusted by the Controller for some months: and whether, in these circumstances and in view of the 10s. per ton reduction in the price of coal, he will arrange for the Government itself to find the necessary money to finance the industry during the period, probably from twelve to eighteen months, before the official accounts are adjusted?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that many colliery-owners are now working their collieries at a loss. The increases in. wages and other costs have made it necessary to provide more working capital. In any case, however, in which collieries are financially embarrassed, it is the practice of the Controller to make advances on account of his statutory liabilities. I recognise that the reduction in the price of household and domes[...] coal will increase the need for such advance, both in frequency and in amount.

TOBACCO.

Mr. HURD: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a London tobacco firm have announced an advance of Is. 4d. per lb. in the price of their mixtures; whether, seeing the general public interest in the subject, he will inform the House what has been the rise in the cost of imported tobacco leaf since the retail prices were last fixed by the Tobacco Control Board; what is the loss to British tobacco traders on the present American rate of exchange; and what has been the amount of increase in wages for tobacco operatives in this country as fixed by the Tobacco Trades Board over previous rates?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no information with regard to any advance announced by a London tobacco firm in the price of its mixtures. The average declared value per pound of unmanufactured tobacco imported into the United Kingdom in April, 1918, in which month retail prices were last fixed by the Tobacco Control Board, was Is. 8d. The corresponding value in November, 1919, was 2s. 81½d. per pound. I am unable to state the amount of loss to British tobacco traders on the present rates of exchange. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

PROFITEERING CENTRAL COM MITTEE.

Mr. F. GREEN: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by the chairman of the Central Profiteering Committee that that body was intended only as a panel from which tribunals and committees were to be selected; whether he will state if, under Article 2 of the Regulations of 18th September, the duty of appointing committees is the prerogative of the Central Committee and by what Regulation is the Central Committee reduced to a list of persons from whom some other body is to make a selection; whether, under the same Article, power is given to the Central Committee not only to appoint the three standing committees but such other committees as they may from time to time deem expedient; whether this implies a general responsibility for the administration of the Act; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of the refusal of the chairman to call the Committee together, they are proposing to convene themselves and demand his resignation?

Sir A. GEDDES: As regards the first part of the question I am unable to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Members for Hanley and the Moss Side Division on the 24th November. I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the last part of the question.

LONDON-PARIS AIR MAIL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether instructions have been given at the post office in Parliament Street that letters for the London-Paris air-mail service are only to be accepted for posting in the morning; what is the reason for preventing the posting of such correspondence daily at the end of business hours; and whether he will now arrange for its acceptance at any time of the day at the eight post offices mentioned in the original announcement?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): No instructions have been given for the refusal of aeroplane letters 'tendered at the Parliament Street branch office in the evening for despatch by the air-mail service to Paris on the following day; and steps have been
taken to prevent the refusal of such letters at any of the eight London offices at which correspondence may be posted for transmission by the air-mail service.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to economise labour in the London telephone, service and also to save subscribers from a multiplicity of pink and white accounts, he mill arrange for an account covering all charges to be presented to each subscriber Once only in each [...]?

Mr. PEASE: The question whether an improvement can be effected in the present system of accounting in connection with the telephone service is already under review.

Major GLYN: 90.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the supply of instruments is now adequate to meet the demands upon the telephone service; whether there is still a large number of skilled men, linesmen and mechanics, still serving in the forces whose services are urgently required at home; and whether he is now in a position to review the charges that have been in force for the last two years for the installation of telephones for business and private services?

Mr. PEASE: A fair supply of instruments to be fitted on subscribers' premises is now coming in, but considerable arrears have to be overtaken in the manufacture and installation of plant and apparatus in Telephone Exchanges, and in the construction of underground lines. A number of skilled men are still absent in the Army, but their demobilisation is, I am assured, proceeding as rapidly as possible. The revision of the current charges for telephone service is at present under consideration, and I hope shortly to be in a position to bring proposals before a Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

FORTH GOODS STATION, NEWCASTLE-ON- TYNE.

Mr. DOYLE: 92.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Forth goods station at Nwcastle-on-Tyne has again been closed for over a month;
that the local official can offer no hopes of permits being granted for any goods except foodstuffs in the near future; and if, in view of the detrimental effects on employment and Christmas trade, and business generally, he will inquire into this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have no information as to the circumstances referred to, but I am making inquiries.

PERISHABLE GOODS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 94.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the great shortage of train service for the purpose of carrying perishable goods; if so, will he arrange for a better service to producing and distributing centres; and will he have such trains advertised as passenger trains are scheduled?

Mr. NEAL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to several similar questions on the 1st December.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the reports in to-days "Star" as to the amounts of foodstuffs now in dock that cannot be removed?

Mr. NEAL: I have not seen the report referred to, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hopes to make an early public statement on the whole question.

WAGON SHORTAGE.

Mr. HAYDAY: 102.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in view of the scarcity of wagons, he could state how many wagons were on order from manufacturers; and whether he was aware that wagon manufacturing works were working short time?

Mr. NEAL: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield on 20th November. I am making further inquiries as to any unused wagon-manufacturing capacity, but I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Government any intention of building wagons in their own Departments such as the Arsenal, and in other parts of the country, so as to speed up the provision of wagons?

Mr. NEAL: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Paper.

Major GREAME: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all the manufacturers are at present short of orders?

Mr. NEAL: The whole question is being given most careful attention, and I hope it will be dealt with at an early date.

Major GREAME: Is not the practical way to see that the railway companies place orders, so that the shortage maybe overcome?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

DISPOSAL BOARD (CLOTHING).

Mr. BRIANT: 96.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what stocks of clothing still remained in the hands of the Disposal Board?

Mr. HOPE: The preparation and publication of such a return as that asked for by my hon. Friend would be laborious and costly, nor do I consider that it would be in the public interest to give details of the quantities of the various garments now being disposed of, but if my hon. Friend will call at the Ministry I shall be glad to discuss the question with him.

MUNITION FACTORIES (VALUATION).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 97.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what system was followed in taking inventories and valuations of factories, etc., taken over by the Government under the Defence of the Realm Act; whether these were prepared from the records of the firms or individuals owning or occupying such factories, or under the auspices of independent valuers and experts, at the time when the premises and stock, etc., were taken over; or whether inventories were left to the discretion of the official in charge of taking over arrangements?

Mr. HOPE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Hammersmith on 1st December.

LONDON COUNTY HALL.

Mr. GILBERT: 99.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he was aware that the
building of the new County Hall, Westminster Bridge, was being greatly delayed owing to the non-delivery of steel; would he state whether the Government had still any priority orders with steel manufacturers; and, if so, would they consider any application of the London County Council to be put on Government priority lists for the steel wanted for the completion of this necessary public building in London?

Mr. HOPE: All priority certificates and permits have ceased to operate since 1st March last.

SALVAGE (WAR THEATRES).

Major GLYN: 100.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, at the present rate of progress, by the 30th April all the stores and material worth salving from France, Belgium, and other theatres of war would have been disposed of; whether he had been able to assure the War Office that no troops or hired Chinese labourers would be required on and after that date in any recent theatre of war overseas; and whether, if this was not the case, he would consider the advantage of making a contract with some civilian firms or corporations for carrying out salvage operations after the 30th April, 1920, thus enabling the complete demobilisation of all troops in France, Belgium and other recent theatres of war to be completed?

Mr. HOPE: At the present rate of progress, it is probable that the great bulk of the surplus stores and material in Belgium, France, and Italy will have been disposed of by 30th April, 1920; but it is obviously impossible to give an assurance that no troops or Chinese labourers will be required after that date in any theatre of war. The Disposal Board is always prepared to consider the employment of civilian firms or corporations for carrying out on their behalf the duties for which they are responsible, and arrangements are at present under discussion with the Departments concerned for carrying on the necessary services in theatres of war with civilian labour, after the demobilisation of the troops at present engaged thereon.

Major GLYN: May I ask whether, in consultation with the War Office, some satisfaction could be given to officers and
men still kept in France who are unable to make their own arrangements, and could not some announcement be made as to whether or not these troops are to be employed in France?

Mr. HOPE: Obviously I could not answer that without consultation with the War Office.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cut your losses.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. J. TAYLOR: 104.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department had refused to sanction schemes of salaries submitted to them by the new education authorities; and whether the salaries so submitted exceeded the minimum authorised by the Department?

Colonel GIBBS: The Department have not refused sanction to any scheme of salaries yet submitted. In a few cases schemes have been returned for fuller information. Several of the schemes submitted provide salaries in excess of the minimum national scales.

Mr. TAYLOR: Was the minimum supposed to be the maximum, or was no educational authority to exceed the minimum?

Colonel GIBBS: I will inform my right hon. Friend of that question.

SUPERANNUATION PREMIUMS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 105.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the forms for reclaiming the premiums paid by the teachers under the old superannuation scheme were to be issued to the teacher by the Scottish Education Department; and how soon might the teachers expect to have the sums they have paid refunded?

Colonel GIBBS: More than half of the forms have been issued, and it is hoped to complete this part of the work by the end of December. Repayment has been made in some thousands of cases, and is being carried out as rapidly as possible.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it the fact that some teachers have not been paid, and that this has caused discontent? Is there any
reason why the forms should not be sent to the education authorities instead of to the Department?

Colonel GIBBS: I will have that question also conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Would it not be better for the Lord Advocate to be here to answer these questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That Mr. Gershom Stewart be a member of the Committee—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY ESTIMATES (1919-20).

Estimate presented of the sum required for the year 1919-20 for the Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. No. 220.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Rats and Mice (Destruction) Bill,

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Re-committed) BILL,

Considered in Committee.

[MR. -WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Classification of Central and Provincial Subjects.)

(1) Provision may be wade by Rules under the Government of India Act, 19[...] as amended by the Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1916 (which Act, as so amended, is in this Act referred to as "the principal Act")—

(a) for the classification of subjects, in relation to the functions of Government, as central and provincial subjects, for the purpose of distinguishing the functions of local government and local legislatures tures from the functions of the Governor-General in Council and the Indian legislature;
(b) for the devolution of authority in respect of provincial subjects to local governments, and for the allocation of revenues or other moneys to those governments;
(c) for the. use under the authority of the Governor-General in Council of the agency of local governments in relation to central subjects, in so far as such agency may be tumid convenient, and for determining the financial conditions of such agency; and
(d) for the transfer from among the provincial subjects of subjects (in this Act referred to as "transferred subjects") to the administration of the governor acting with ministers appointed under this Act, and for the allocation of revenues or moneys for the purpose of such administration.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, Rules made for the above-mentioned purposes may—

(i) regulate the extent and conditions of such devolution, allocation, and transfer;
(ii) provide for xing the contributions payable by local governments to the Governor-General in Council, and making such contributions a first charge on allocated revenues or moneys;
(iii) provide for constituting a finance department in any province, and regulating the functions of that department;
(iv) provide for regulative the exercise of the authority vested in the local government of a province over members of the public services therein;
(v)provide for the settlement of doubts arising as to whether any matter does or does not relate to a provincial subject or a transferred subject, and for the treatment of matters which affect both a transferred subject and a subject which is not transferred; and
(vi) make such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient:

Provided that without prejudice to any general power of revoking or altering Rules
under the principal Act, the Rules shall not authorise the revocation or suspension of the transfer of any subject except with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council.

(3) The powers of superintendence, direction, and control over local governments vested in the Governor-General in Council under the principal Act shall in relation to transferred subjects be exercised only for such purposes as may be specified in Rules made under that Act, but the Governor-General in Council shall be the sole judge as to whether the purpose of the exercise of such powers in any particular case comes within the purposes so specified.

(4) The expressions "central subjects" and "provincial subjects'' as used in this Act mean subjects so classified under the Rules.

Provincial subjects, other than transferred subjects, are in this Act referred to as "reserved subjects"

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. It might be for the convenience of the Committee. If you, Mr. Chairman, would give us some guidance on a point I respectfully submit to you. Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of two hon. Members are quite contradictory in terms and in intent, but they both propose to leave out paragraph;(d) to achieve their very different objects. Can you give us any guidance as to how in your opinion the Committee can corn to a definite conclusion on the policy submitted by both these Amendments, and any other suggestion with regard to ancillary and subsequent Amendments?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before a ruling is given, may I put it to you that this Bill is probably the most important Bill that has yet come before this House since it was elected, and may I put it to you that the ordinary Rules of Procedure in Committee should be strictly followed within your province, and that we should not in any way damp down discussion on the very important Amendments which appear later in the Bill? May I also put it to you that the proceedings of this House on this Bill are being watched— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"]

The CHAIRMAN: That does not seem relevant. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. I shall always endeavour to perform my duties in the Chair. With regard to the question put to me, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) for raising the point of Order, because I had in my mind the same Object—namely, to enable the Committee to have a clear discussion and a clear issue on the various points which are raised. Apart from the first three Amendments on the Paper which deal with another subject, there are at the beginning of the pro-
ceedings three main points. The first one stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), and his proposal may be described as for greater devolution than the Bill at present provides. There is then the Amendment next following, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel yate), who wishes to strike out paragraph (d) of Clause I and to insert new proposals different from those in the Bill as it stands. Further on I notice two Amendments to Clause 3, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Wilson) and other hon. Members. That is a proposal that the period before the second step in self-government shall be less than is provided by the Bill. Those are the three main points which arise in the early stages of the Bill, and my endeavour is that on each of those three the Committee should have a clear and separate issue. Therefore, I suggest, taking the first of those three, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton, to leave out paragraph (d), and to insert his own paragraph (d). Following that, I will take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland as an addition to paragraph (d), to make it read, "but subject to rule made," etc. That. I think would achieve his object. We shall follow with a Debate later on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. I think that course will enable the Committee to discuss the different questions and take Divisions on the point.

Colonel YATE: May I ask whether my first Amendment on the Paper is one on which I can speak?

The CH AIRMAN: Is that Amendment to be read along with another Amendment standing in the name of the hen and gallant Member, and third on the Paper?

Colonel YATE: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: In that case the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to move it here

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "under the Government of India Act, 1915, as amended by the Government of India (Amendment). Act 1916 (which Act, as so amended is in this Act referred to as the principal Act'),"and to insert instead thereof the words, "under this Act"
I certainly agree with what has been said just now by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) that this is the most momentous Bill we have bad before us, certainly in this Parliament. It must he remembered that it concerns not 4,000,000 of people in Ireland or Scotland, but 315,000,000 of people in India, and it vitally concerns the whole of our Eastern Empire. It affects British interests in Aden, along the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, Bombay, Colombo, Calcutta, Singapore, Shanghai and Wei-hai-Wei. If once the pax Britannica is destroyed in India, you may say that the foundation of all those places is also destroyed. Therefore I would like to ask the House to approach this Bill with the most careful consideration. I would ask hon. Members also to look at the Report of the Joint Committee. In Clause 2 of that Report the Select Committee record that they were not charged
to consider the best form of government for India, but only with the duty of dealing with this Bill which had been read a second time in the house of Commons …
I would ask hon. Members to recollect that we have to consider this Bill, which was read a second time under extraordinary circumstances. The House will recall how the Bill was brought in on the Thursday before the Whitsuntide Recess, and was passed in a few hours, with hardly any Debate, and rushed through before any body had time to consider it, and then submitted to the Joint Select Committee. We are here, I take it, to legislate for the best form of government for India. Just consider how India has been treated in this matter! We sent to Egypt Lord Milner, who is, I suppose, the greatest living authority on Egypt, thoroughly conversant with that country, which is a small country, with 12,500,000 inhabitants, almost all of the same religion. The Milner Commission goes out to Egypt to make a complete inquiry into the best form of government for that country. Here are we discussing a Constitution for India, produced by the Secretary of State for India, who knew nothing about India, but went out there and, having consulted some persons there, comes back and forms a Constitution for a country bigger than the whole of Europe, without Russia. It is our duty to consider most carefully all the provisions of this Bill. Take up this point on which I have moved the
Amendment, and we see that everything is to be left to the Rules and by reference to two former Acts. I ask hon. Members to look at the copy of the principal Act with the proposed Amendments which are given to us, and see the Amendments of the principal Act. It; is stated that all the new things in the Act are underlined, and hon. Members will see that the whole Bill is a mass of underlinings. Here is the Secretary of State taking to himself power under these Rules to amend the whole of the Constitution for India and the Acts which have been in force ever since the announcement of Queen Victoria.
4.0 P.M.
I ask the House to consider this question. These Rules ought not to be left simply and solely to the idiosyncrasy of any particular Secretary of State. The Secretary of State throughout the whole of this Bill, by means of references which none of us understand or know, is putting everything into his own autocratic power; he is making himself an absolute autocrat. There may be some good in that, because we may have another Secretary of State who will make good Rules and upset all the bad Rules made by the present Secretary of State. We are, however, in this House very much against legislation by what we call Orders in Council. We want to legislate in this House, and we do not want to leave things to be upset. We had the Aliens Act before us a short time ago. We all remember the Aliens Act of 1905. In 1906 we had another Home Secretary who, by the Rules which he issued, absolutely nullified that Act. We do not want to see that done here. We want to pass a really good piece of legislation. I am in favour of the announcement of August, 1917, and I am longing to see self-government for India, but that announcement, on which this Bill is based, ought to have been made by the King himself as Emperor of India, and it ought not to have been made by the Secretary of State in answer to a question in this House.
The point now before us is to insert the words "under this Act" instead of the words under the Government of India Act, 1915, as amended by the Government of India Amendment Act, 1916 (which Act, as so amended, is in this Act referred to as 'the principal Act')." I ask hon. Members to look at the Act and see the alterations which are covered by this particular Clause, and I ask that those words should be left out and that we should insert the words "under this Act." There
is no hurry about this Bill. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to have a Bill to send out to India in time for the Peace celebrations on the 13th of this month. I agree that is the proper thing, and I should like to see a Bill passed to show that we are really in earnest to give self-government to India, not necessarily in time for the National Congress, because I do not consider that of any importance. I should like to see an assurance given to India that we are going to give them a proper form of self-government, but this Bill cannot under any circumstances be brought into operation for the next two years. It cannot come into force until well on into 1921. Sir James Meston has himself said that this Bill cannot come into operation until the summer of 1921. Therefore, let us pass the Bill, but, as to the Rules, we ought to know exactly where we stand and we ought to have time to send them out to India, so that we may know if the Government of India agrees to them and if the Governors of the eight Provinces agree to them. We sent out a special Commission to a small country like Egypt. Take every one of the Provinces of India—Bombay with 20,000,000, the United Provinces with 40.000,000, and Bengal with 50,000,000—all with different nationalities, languages, colour, and creeds! Each of those requires a Commission to itself. We must know from the Governors of those Provinces what they consider is right and proper. When we have got the Rules back again we shall know what they think in each Province, and they can then be passed by this House and attached to the Bill.
It seems to me important that we should have no legislation by reference. I could not find out what the original Act was. It was only to-day that I managed to get the Act, and I have not had time to go through the whole thing. We have only had a week since this enormous mass of correspondence and printed matter was launched at our heads, and we do not know what the effect of these Rules is going to be. My Amendment will enable us to have these rules properly considered without delaying the Bill. I do not want to delay the Bill. We could then have the rules considered and attach them to the Bill before it comes into operation. If hon. Members will look at my second Amendment they will see that it reads:
Such Rules shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such Rules shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the drafts, either without modifications
and additions or with modifications and additions to which both Houses agree. Upon such approval being given the Secretary of State in council may make such Rules in the form in which they have been approved, and such Rules on being so made shall he attached as Schedules to the Bill and have the same force and effect as if they formed part of the Bill, and the Bill shall not be brought into operation till all such Rules have been approved and attached to the Bill
I think hon. Members will agree that that is a very reasonable proposition. It is one by which we hope to ensure properly considered legislation, not legislation rushed through without anybody knowing what it means. It will give us time to get the opinion of the Governors of all the various Provinces in India, and the rules can then be attached to the Bill long before it can come into operation. I do ask the Committee not to pass blindfold legislation leaving everything to be worked out afterwards according to the views of the Secretary of State. This is a great Imperial matter on winch our whole Eastern Empire rests. Let us pass the Bill, but let us first have a sure indication what the effect of the rules will be and then attach them to the Bill and make them part of the Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I am not sure whether we are to discuss this and the latter Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, which I gather cuts out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Oman). In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["the principal Act"], to insert the words
Such Rules shall be laid in draft before both Houses of parliament, and such Rules shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft. either without modification or additions to both Houses agree. But upon such approval being given the Secretary of State in Council may make such Rules in the form in which they have been approved and such Rules on being so made shall be of full force and effect

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Oman), if it stood by itself, would be a matter for Clause 44, and not Clause It is only the later words that have any relevance to the first Clause.

Mr. OMAN: I may be wrong, of course, but if the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is accepted by the House it will be unnecessary for me to move. If his Amendment fails, then I imagine that my Amendment will stand by itself.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it might come on Clause 44, but not on this Clause.

Mr. MONTAGU: The first part of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, arises from a misapprehension. Of course, this is a Bill to amend the Government of India Act, 1915, and it amends it substantially, but in order to avoid confusion, as soon as this Bill is passed, then by means of the Schedule this kill will he automatically incorporated into the old Act. The consequence is that there will be no necessity for any fresh consolidation, or any fresh reference to a complicated system of Acts. There will always be only one Act. Therefore, the words "principal Act," as printed in this Clause, under the operation of the Schedule and the action of the King's printers, when this Bill gets the Royal Assent, disappear, and the words "this Act" are substituted, "this Act" meaning the whole Constitution of India as embodied in the principal Act and these Amendments. If my hon. and gallant Friend be successful in that part of his desire, we lose the definition of the principal Act, we lose the whole of the scheme upon which this Bill is constructed, and are deprived of the opportunity of automatic consolidation, which will prevent hon. Members in the future having the trouble and difficulty which my hon. and gallant Friend has described on this occasion. Therefore, I most earnestly trust that that part of my hon. and gallant Friend's scheme will not be accepted. It does not make for greater or less clearness; it is simply a question of drafting, and, when he sees the Consolidated Bill after the Royal Assent is given, he will find that the words "principal Act" disappear and the words "this Act" are substituted.
As regards the autocratic power of the Secretary of State, I may say that there never has been a Bill introduced for the Government of India which makes the Secretary of State so amenable to the control of this House. Rules under former Acts were not made with all the provisions which have been incorporated in this Bill to secure the control of Parliament. All the Rules under Clause 1 have to be brought before Parliament by the Secretary of State. It is suggested that all the Rules shall first be investigated and reported upon by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Therefore, the House will have the advice of a committee of their own
appointment on all the Rules before they come before them. The only difference which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to make is that instead of lying on the Table the Rules should have a Resolution of both Houses. Heaven knows that this House is sufficiently congested as it is. We do not want to increase unnecessarily the work thrown upon its shoulders. By all means let us have the important Rules, but do not let us bother to have a Resolution on every trifling alteration in what, I fear, will be a very complicated set of Rules. I think my hon. and gallant Friend would defeat his own object, because, if all the Rules are brought before Parliament for affirmative Resolutions, it will become so customary an affair that it will lose its great significance. We had the whole of this discussion upstairs, and it was agreed that the best way was that all the Rules should be submitted to the Joint Committee, if Parliament appointed it, and that all the Rules with the Report of the Committee, should come before the House of Commons. The Secretary of State is authorised by this Bill, if it passes in this form, to decide whether he will adopt the affirmative Resolution rather than the negative laying upon the Table of the Rules. The Secretary of State, as a matter of Parliamentary practice, will act after taking the advice of the Joint Committee—he would be a fool if he did not—and really in practice it will be the Joint Committee which will say to him, "These Rules are so important that you had better have an affirmative Resolution. This is such a trifling alteration that it is necessary only to draw the attention of Parliament to it and to leave it upon the Table of the House" I think that is really the most businesslike way of doing it. My hon. and gallant Friend speaks very feelingly, and I accept with gratitude his statement that he wants to see working a measure of self-government in India, but he wants to preserve Parliamentary control over that measure of self-government. I agree with him, and I will do anything in my power to assure that that control is maintained, but he does not want to cumber up the procedure of the Houses of Parliament and to make difficulties in putting into force the Bill when it is passed. I think the Clause as drawn gives control of the House of Commons in every necessary particular, and does not fall into the difficulties which my hon.
and gallant Friend suggests. It may interest the House to know that I have had some correspondence with the Viceroy and with the Government of India on what will happen if, as my hon. and gallant Friend and I both hope, this Bill receives the Royal Assent before Christmas. We estimate, we hope, that the Rules under the Bill after publication in India, after receiving the opinions of all concerned, including the local governments, will be brought home here in sufficient time to hold the new elections in November of next year, and we hope that the new Legislative Assembly will sit in India in January of 1921. I merely wished to say that now, because my hon. and gallant Friend gave alternative dates, and I wanted the House to know what the Government of India and the India Office were aiming at as the programme if everything went well. I hope I have gone some way to convince my hon. and gallant. Friend on the matters which he has brought to the notice of the Committee.

Colonel YATE: The right hon. Gentleman says he hopes to get this Bill by January, but we most of us think it will not come till the autumn of 1921, although that is a small difference. Both dates give equal time for us to have the opinion of the local governments. We know what laying Papers on the Table of the House means. A Paper may lie for nine days or for twenty-nine days, and who knows anything about it? If we are to have a proper procedure we must have a Resolution of the House, or else who is to decide which of these Rules is necessary or unnecessary? I think we should be wrong in passing this Bill if we are not able to give our opinion on all the Rules that are to be brought in when it is passed. It is a most momentous Bill, and it is the duty of this House to give its opinion on the: Roles to be brought into force by the Bill. I must, therefore, stick to my Amendment.

Mr. OMAN: I rise to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in not withdrawing his Amendment, and the reasons I have to add are very simple. I formed one of the not inconsiderable body of persons who voted against the way in which this Committee was nominated. We thought the Commons members of the Joint Committee were not chosen on fair principles. There was only one member among them—

The CHAIRMAN: That is quite out of order. The hon. Member is not allowed to criticise the constitution of the Committee, which was the act of the House.

Mr. OMAN: The right hon. Gentleman was saying he was going to set up this Joint Committee for good as a revising body for this Bill. I was, therefore, merely pointing out that some of us had no confidence in the Joint Committee so far as it was appointed by ourselves, and therefore we regarded it as a most unsatisfactory body to set up.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will see the reason of our rule. A minority always thinks itself in the right. But when the House has decided by a majority it is not open to further criticism of that kind.

Mr. OMAN: The other point I wish to make is that, as I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we shall have dropping files of rules for a. very long time coming before us at intervals which it will be impossible for us to study with the other things which will be claiming our attention. There may be a strike on, there may be trouble in Germany, there may be trouble with Russia, and nothing can compare with the advantage of considering the mass of material at the time when the main Bill is in band. To refer all this to casual times and seasons seems to me wholly unsatisfactory. The whole system of rules in itself is unsatisfactory, but if anything can possibly palliate the system it is that they should be taken in one mass, and, as the Mover of the Amendment proposes, they should be attached to the Bill in Schedules. Then we could consider them altogether, whereas if they drop in from time to time, as they will do under the system of Rules laid before us at irregular intervals, there will be no proper way in which the House can concentrate itself on Indian subjects.

Sir J. D. REES: The Bill having received a Second Reading, I was not personally prepared for the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant. Friend, nor am I anxious now to follow them. I believe the more we stick to the particular Amendments and get through the particular Bill, the more properly the House will now be executing its duty. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested Egypt as an analogous case, but surely that analogy is without foundation. Egypt has never been immediately under British rule, and there is nothing whatever analogous between
what is proposed in Egypt and what is proposed to be done in India by this Bill. When he referred to the Joint Report, he omitted a consideration which I will mention, because I think it is habitually forgotten in writings, in speeches, and in all comments on this Bill, and that is that the Report upon which the Bill is based was not solely the work of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India, but that Report had the general concurrence of the Council of India and of the Council of the Secretary of State, who by common consent are serious and sober statesmen and not rash young reformers. As regards my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, I think he fell into some error in saying the principal Act had been in force since Queen Victoria's Proclamation. I was a member of the Joint Committee of both Houses which consolidated the Act of 1915, and I think we incorporated in it a very great many Amendments which had been made since the date of Queen Victoria's Proclamation, and all that is now proposed is to admit into that Act such Amendments as are now made by the present Act. I think my hon. and gallant Friend was also in error in stating that Lord Meston said this Bill could not come into force, however quickly it was passed, for three years. I understood him to say eighteen months. There is no reason whatever, from the point of view of the consideration of these Rules, for the Amendment, because Clause 44 provides in the most unequivocal manner for the Rules coming before Parliament when necessary, and the only Rules that I think would be particularly affected by this Amendment, if passed, would be Rules which by common consent might be fairly disposed of in India by the Governor in Council.

Earl WINTERTON: I find myself, with no personal knowledge on this subject, in some difficulty about the matter. It seems to me to be quite clear from Clause 44 that these Rules will have the force of law if they lie on the Table of tile House in the ordinary way, and I was rather surprised at the laughter which greeted the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member that nobody reads Rules laid on the Table. My experience is that the House takes very little interest in documents laid on the Table of the House. As somebody wittily observed, "For all the good they do, they might as well lie on the floor of the House" The other day certain Rules under the Housing
Act would have become law had certain of us not raised the question, and one day before they became law they were unknown to a great number of Members. Many hon. Members came up to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and myself, and thanked us for calling their attention to the matter. The question here is whether it is better in a matter of this kind that the Rules should be passed by Resolution of both Houses, or whether they should become law automatically by being laid upon the Table of both Houses. I must say I do not think any Minister should use the argument that the house is so congested already that it has no time for more work. I have heard that argument for over twelve years in this House, and if Ministers hold that view, why do they not bring in a Bill to alter the existing Constitution? Whenever Ministers wish to get a matter easily through this House, they invariably use that argument, whether in regard to India, Ireland, or Kamskatka. It is always the same argument—we have so little time, and Parliament is so congested that we must do it by this method. Therefore I hope the Committee will not allow their minds to be affected at all by that argument. The question is, What is best in the interests of India, whether these Rules should become law by means of a Resolution or by means of lying on the Table of the House? I confess that without further argument from the Secretary of State to show that it would involve a tremendous strain on his office and a greater strain on the time of Parliament than he has shown already, I should be inclined to vote for the Amendment. I think it is highly important in future that Parliament should take far more interest in the affairs of India than in the past, and with considerable experience of Indian Debates I am pleased to see for the first occasion in my recollection something like a full Committee in discussing an Indian question. It is in very pleasing contrast to what used to happen years ago, for when we discussed the Secretary of State for India's salary we used to have about a dozen people in the House, mostly experts.

Mr. MONTAGU: Under Clause 44 either the Rules may lie upon the Table of the House or they may be submitted for an affirmative Resolution.

Major Earl WINTERTON: That is permissive.

Mr. MONTAGU: The question is whether all Rules shall be submitted to this process or only some of them. Although I think it would be much better to come in as an Amendment to Clause 44, I should have considerable sympathy with the Noble Lord's desire as a safer plan, if it were not that I do hope that, for the first time in the history of Parliament, there will be appointed, not by any Minister, but by the House itself, a Standing Committee on Indian affairs. If such a Committee exists, it will be their business to point out to the House the change of Rules, and the fear of the Noble Lord that nobody will look at them will be obviated by the existence of that Standing Committee But, further than that, the Standing Committee will have the power to advise Parliament when there are Rules of sufficient importance that they should be submitted for affirmative Resolution, and, if they do that, I feel quite convinced Parliament will insist on supporting its own Committee and standing up for the advice which is given. I do not think it is necessary to have a Rule which is universal and without exception.

The CHAIRMAN: I am anxious to prevent the Committee getting on to a wrong issue. Some of these points had better he kept until we get to Clause 44. The real point here is whether the present Bill shall not be brought into operation before all this process huts been gone through, and all the Rules have been approved. Let us clear that away first, and leave any; points on Clause 44 until we reach that Clause.

Colonel YATE: That is the point I wish to bring forward, that all these important Rules should be approved by this House and attached to this Bill before it comes into operation.

Sir H. CRAIK: The chief point which we have considered is time advantage or inadvisability of doing so much of our legislation by Rules. But in this case there are many serious issues before us, and I am afraid that, even as a member of a minority on the Joint Committee, I cannot say that I think the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend is really one of vital importance. Although I had the misfortune of being in the minority in the votes of that Committee, this was not the point on which we divided. We weighed all the circumstances. My hon. and gallant Friend led us to think that this was something introduced for the first
time in Indian legislation. That is not so. In the Act of 1915 precisely the same course was followed with regard to Rules. In section 44 on, this Bill we have increased its stringency, and, besides that in our Report we urged that there should be a Standing Committee of the two Houses to consider this matter. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend really to consider what would be the effect of suspending this Bill until all these elaborate Rules, which no previous legislation has attempted to put in the four corners of a Bill, were drafted, considered and approved by Parliament. Meanwhile, what is to become of this Bill? Is this Bill to be kept hanging in the air while we go through the elaborate process, which could not take less than a year or a year and a half? In view of all the points on which my hon. and gallant Friend and I are united, I do not think that this point, on which I think I am right in saying the Joint Committee came to a unanimous decision, is one which we should press.

Sir J. RANDLES: The Secretary of State told us that the Standing Committee would deal with these Rules. Are we to understand that no Rules will be laid on the Table that have not been before, and been approved by, the Standing Committee which it is proposed to set up?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I do not see that there is anything in the Bill to compel the Secretary of State to take the advice of the Standing Committee, and I am in some difficulty for this reason—

The CHAIRMAN: This is really a matter which should be raised when we come to Clause 44.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am in some difficulty, with due respect to your ruling, without discussing Clause 44, how I am to decide which way to vote on this Amendment. If I were assured that the Secretary of State would favourably consider any Amendment to Clause 44, making it compulsory upon him to accept the advice of the Standing Committee, or omitting from Clause 44 the words with reference to Rules in Council, then I should vote against the Amendment of the hon. And gallant Member, but otherwise I think I should have to vote with him. I am in entire agreement with the Noble Lord opposite that anything which will ensure a fuller discussion of Indian affairs in this House, is all to the good, and if the omission of words in Clause 44 will mean the
discussion of Indian affairs in this House, I shall be bound to vote accordingly, and I think it is a very material point on which side the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy lies.

Mr. STEWART: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Standing Committee is a pious hope? Can he assure us that a standing Committee will be set up?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. Member opposite is under a misapprehension as to what the effect of this Amendment will be. The effect, as I read it, is that no port of this Bill can be put into force until I all the franchise rules, and things of that kind, have received the affirmative support of this House. That seems to me quite unreasonable. It is quite impossible for the new local legislatures or the proposed Ministries to come into force until these. Rules have been approved by this House. But there are things in the Bill, such as the appointment of a High Commissioner for India. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want all this sort of thing held up pending the settlement of the franchise Rules? It is really unreasonable that you should hold up a Bill, which is to receive the assent of the King Emperor, and prevent the coming into farce of many of its important Clauses while we are waiting for the machinery to come from India for the approval of this House of certain franchise and other Rules.

Colonel YATE: The appointment of a High Commissioner is in this Bill, but there is nothing in this Bill as to what these Rules are to be. This Bill cannot, in any circumstances, come into force before those Rules are promulgated.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I am sure, absolutely wrong. The Rules which he has in mind affect, notably, franchise and certain other subjects. Those Clauses which are affected by Rules cannot come into force until those Rules are made. But a large number of Clauses can come into force before, as they do not require Rules, and the Amendment would prevent their coming into operation. The other point is really this, that on Clause 44 the House should decide whether they consider the machinery of a Standing Committee of Parliament, or the affirmative process, in giving effect to Rules, should be adopted But all we are asked to
decide here at this point is the question of the holding up of the Act, and I do implore my hon. Friends not to support this Amendment because it would be open to the worse misconstruction, and would complicate further dealing with the Bill enormously, and I am sure it is quite unnecessary, as my right hon. Friend, who was on the Joint Committee, has said. I know the feeling of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the Joint Committee has not done its work. He will have the chance of working against it next Session, when another Committee is set up. Meanwhile I do urge him not to press his Amendment to a Division, because I am sure it will merely cause great difficulty in machinery, and will not do any good to anybody.

The CHAIRMAN: I trust the Committee will come to a decision on this matter. I should not have permitted this Amendment if I had thought questions were going to be raised affecting Clause 41. But in the last part of the Amendment, I saw it was the purpose of the hon. and gallant Member to hold up the Bill until this other process had been gone through, as has been correctly stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Ormsby-Gore).

Colonel YATE: I do not want to hold up the Bill; I only desire that the Rules shall be approved and attached to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The whole effect of the Amendment is in the last words, "the Bill shall not be brought into operation till all such Rules have been approved and attached to the Bill." That is the only thing which brings the Amendment in order at this stage, and it is on that that the Committee will take its decision now.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (d), and to insert instead thereof
(d) for the constitution of the Governor's Executive Council, in which there shall be an equal number of official Ministers and of Ministers chosen by the Governor from the elected members of the Provincial Legislature, and for the allocation of revenues and money for the purposes of administration
The Amendment raises the whole question of diarchy. I would like to ask the House to consider for a moment what diarchy means. There is no word in any known language that represents such a form of government I suppose there has never been such a form of government
since the world began. The word is one apparently coined for the purpose, How it is to be applied we do riot know. I think I saw the meaning of the word "diarchy a newspaper the other day. It practically means, if I may put it so, that if applied to this country the Prime Minister would have half of his Cabinet chosen out of the followers on the benches behind him, and the other -half composed of leaders of the trade unions—of Smillie's and Cramp's and other leaders of that type That is exactly what would happen in India. There the Governor of the Province would have half of his Cabinet as stated, and the other half would be of members chosen from the elected members of his Legislative Council, whose whole fame and notoriety would rest upon the manner in which they succeeded in opposing the official members of the Cabinet. There would be one continual fight—although I do not like to use the word. If hon. Members will turn to the Report of the Joint Select Committee they will see what is recommended to be done to avoid this great evil. I am absolutely at a loss to know how the Secretary of State could manage to get a dozen men together on this Committee to write such an idealistic Report as this.

The CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman a great deal of latitude, but I trust that every proposition of his will not produce such a long preamble. I should be glad if he will come to the point. Would he, first of all, be good enough to take the purpose and effect of his Amendment?

Colonel YATE: The purpose of my Amendment, Mr. Whitley, is to leave out paragraph (d), which deals with a system of diarchy. I am endeavouring to urge my objection to the proposal of the Government. I suppose I may be allowed, with your permission, to try to explain what diarchy is, and what is the result of it.

Mr. ACLAND: Which is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment? What is it in substitution of?

The CHAIRMAN: That is what I am asking the hon. and gallant Member—exactly what is his substitute? I cannot enter into the minds of all hon. Members on occasions like these, and I must ask them to help me by a clear explanation.

Colonel YATE: My substitution is in the words of my Amendment on the Paper.
This I want to substitute for the proposal to constitute a diarchy. My proposal is that the Government of the Provinces should be a unified Government and not a dual Government; that we should not have this preventable friction between the two sides of the Government. Let me refer to the Joint Committee on this subject. I was asking and now ask, hon. Members to take the Report and look at what has been said on this particular point. On page 4 we read:
Each side of the Government will advise and assist the other; neither will control nor impede the other
If you can imagine any body of men appointed in which neither side are to oppose the other, for Heaven's sake put it in the Bill, and do not leave it in the region of pious hopes. So the Report goes on. You will find the same thing on page 5. The Committee say
They are of opinion that the Rules governing the allocation of these revenues and balances should be framed so as to make the existence of such friction impossible. … The Committee desire that the relation of the two sides of the Government in this matter, as in all others, should be of such mutual sympathy that each will be able to assist and influence for the common good the work of the other
That also is a pious hope. But we do not collect a dozen men together to write down pious hopes. We want this sort of thing put in the Bill, and so make it impossible for these things to happen. Therefore, I am moving that we should have a unified Government for India instead of this absurd system of diarchy. Think what this system of diarchy does? The official members of the Governor's Council take all the unpleasantness. They have to collect the taxes. They have to control the people, keep law and order, and do everything that is unpleasant, and the other party are to be able to raise complaints of every kind and criticise, as unofficial members, and oppose what the other half of the body have done. We see, day by day, now that would work out. Every disturbance will be the occasion for an attack upon the official members. What we want is to prevent that in every possible way we can. I do desire hon. Members to think of this and to see how absolutely unworkable is this system of diarchy. Unless the Prime Minister of this country will undertake himself to say, "I am willing to undertake a government of this country with one-half of the Cabinet composed of
hon. Members behind me and the other half of the leaders of trade unions, "then, I say, he has no right to impose such a form of government upon the Governors of the great Provinces in India. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to apply the system to this country, then by ail means let it be applied to India: not otherwise.
On this question of unified Government I welcome the Governor's Council, half of officials and half of elected representative members, for they are all one executive committee and they will work together to carry on the Government. Indians realise only one Government. You cannot in their minds divide it. There is only one Sircar. Nothing that you can do will alter the idea in the mind of the Indian that a thing is done by one Government—one official Government. He has no idea of anything else. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) went out to India, and, so I am told, came across a man named Curtis. It was from this gentleman that he obtained the idea of the diarchy. The right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House of Commons, and says, "I will go down to history as the founder of the diarchy" He proposes in this House this Form of government, and I cannot imagine a more hopeless form. I cannot conceive how it came into his mind. But, as I have said, that is the way I am told he got it. If hon. Members will look at the observations on Clause 6 in the Report, they will see that members of the Executive Council are not to be allowed to express their opinions when those opinions differ from the opinions of other members. Why? You might just as well say that any Minister on the Treasury Bench is not to be allowed to express an opinion contrary to what is expressed by the Opposition! How is it possible for government to go on under such circumstances? Again, I should like to refer to page 5 of the Report, where you have reference made to a list of transferred subjects. It says:
The lists of central, provincial, and transferred subjects included in the Functions Committee's Report have been somewhat altered after consultation with the India Office
I should like to know about this alteration. We have heard nothing from the Government of India, or the Governors of Provinces, to show that they agree. It you look at the Blue Book you will see that all these alterations are carried out I by a Committee under, I believe, the
chairmanship of Mr. Charles Roberts. This is in Appendix III. I should like to know what is the authority of Mr. Charles Roberts for making all the alterations that are here put before us. We have no information as to the views of the Government of India on this scheme. We have no information as to the views or the Provincial Governments at all about it. We are asked to legislate blindfold for these things. I do say that no measure of this sort should be brought in without consultation with the Governors of the great Provinces. Even we do not put forward a new Constitution for Malta—a little place like that—without asking for the opinion of the Governor.

The CHAIRMAN: Really, I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep more closely to the point, and to deal with this matter in a businesslike way. The Bill has already been before a Select Committee, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should bear that in mind.

5.0 P.M

Colonel YATE: I will try to obey your ruling, Mr. Whitley, but really the point raised by the Secretary of State, the 'definite point, is such an indefinite point that I perhaps have gone further than I ought to have done. But I do ask hon. Members to consider this matter very carefully, for this system, new and foreign to every Government, is one which is not lightly to be undertaken. This is a very serious questions and if hon. Members will only think it over they will see the intense seriousness of it, and how it may, under certain circumstances, upset the whole of the Government of India.

Mr. ACLAND: Having been a member of the Committee referred to, I want to explain that I was not able to be present during the most vital part of the discussion. This question of the diarchy is absolutely the fundamental question we have to consider. The Chairman has ruled that we must consider this question only in relation to the alternative which the hon. and gallant Member proposes. No one has said that a system of diarchy is ideal. There will certainly be difficulties, and naturally this must be so. All we have claimed is that it is the best system of carrying out the declaration of the Acts of 1917 in order to make a real step towards the attainment of responsible Government. Therefore we must consider whether the basis proposed in the Bill is
or is not, on the whole, better than what is proposed to be substituted by the Amendment. The Amendment means that there will be an executive council consisting of an equal number of official members and persons chosen from the elected re presentatives. There would be no duty of any sort or kind on the Governor to allot any particular portlolios, or any real executive responsibility to the persons selected from those elected by the constituencies.
Is that really a proper carrying out of what this House determined when they gave this Bill a Second Heading? Is it compatible with what we say in the pre amble of the Bill, that we want to get a gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the realisation of responsible Government? Can you re gard a system under which you have an equal number of elected representatives alongside of official members, without any guarantee that the elected members will have any powers at all, as a real step to wards responsible Government for India. This system involves dualism and diarchy every bit as much as the system of the Bill. You cannot avoid having differences of opinion between the official members and those selected from the legislature, and even if the governor acts fairly and does make a distribution of portfolios, you will have the dual system and you cannot avoid it, but it will be in a very unfortunate form. To say that you avoid all the difficulties by the alternative proposal in the Bill simply will not hold water, because you have dualism without having that de finite responsibility which alone will make-dualism a real success.
Will the House visualise the way in which the alternative which the hon. and gallant Member proposes is likely to work? I suggest that you will not get the maximum of friendly working unless each side of the Executive Council has a definite responsibility at tached to it in consequence of the passage of this Bill. If everyone is responsible for everything, there is much more likelihood of friction than if the two sides are responsible for different things, although having the right to give one another ad vice and help one another with regard to those two different responsibilities. Let us realise that it is part of the policy of this country, as laid down by the Secretary of State for India on the Second Reading of this Bill, that it should constitute a stage from which further steps forward
are possible, if this stage shows by its working that it is justified. Under the system that is proposed by the hon. and gallant Member opposite no further step is possible unless you postpone the operation of the Bill for a certain number of years, and that is a thing which I think the majority of this House does not wish to do, or else the complete responsibility must be put on the elected Legislature which I am sure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) would be the first to say was much too big a step to take all at once. It is only by giving real responsibility for certain subjects, so that the Ministers selected from the Legislature will have to stand absolutely on their own legs, and if they fail or succeed it will be owing to their own action, and then this Parliament will be able to judge whether it is right to take a further step forward and then entrust the elected representatives with further powers.
We wish to educate the Indian electors, and is not the way to educate any electorate to let them see that they have something like a direct responsibility for the actions taken by the persons selected to be Ministers. In this Parliament we all realise that we have responsibility for the action of the Government which we wish to have put into power. That method of having an electorate is useful, and is one of the things which we think most necessary to take place in India, and unless you can show to the electorate what they have done to elect persons with real responsibility for portfolios, you will not arrive at the responsibility which is very vital in a country like India. One of the principal things is that there should be in a certain number of years power given to this House to judge definitely whether we should take a further step, and if so what step to take. As long as you give the ministers selected from the Legislature the power, which the hon. and gallant Member's scheme would give, of saying that any failure was not their fault because the official members interfered, you will not be able to arrive at a real judgment as to whether the administration of those representatives has been a success or a failure, and one of the main purposes of legislation will be defeated. Let the House visualise what will happen. These members will be selected from the elected representatives and will be given either no work or some work, or at any rate they will have no definite responsibility.

Colonel YATE: I never contemplated that. Every member of the executive will have his portfolio the same as anybody else, and, of course, every elected member will have the same responsibility as the official members.

Mr. ACLAND: Let us take the Bill with the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. There will be no obligation on the part of the Governor to allot any portfolios.

Colonel YATE: Then why not put it in the Bill?

Mr. ACLAND: I am dealing with this Bill as the hon. and gallant Member wishes to amend it. The persons selected will have a very difficult position. They will not have any real responsibility of their own, and in course of time they will gradually become the tools of the official members, and maybe of the Governor, in carrying out the official policy, in which case they will lose the touch and confidence of those who have elected them, or else they will claim their right of interfering with every mortal thing, and try to make every action of the Government impossible and make it difficult for things to be done in the interests of India. I have tried to express my points clearly, and having done so, I will not continue the discussions any further. Such an Amendment as this would be absolutely fatal to the Bill, and is not in any sort of way carrying out the policy which this House determined upon when we gave this Bill a Second Reading.

Sir H. CRAIK: When the Second Reading of this Bill was discussed there was no one who pointed out the effects of diarchy more clearly than I did myself. The right hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, and the Secretary of State for India, know perfectly well that this principle is open to the widest and most serious objection. It cannot work. What does my hon. and gallant Friend opposite propose to substitute? I am disposed to take the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Acland) as to the effect of this Amendment. It seems to me that this proposal would introduce diarchy in the most dangerous and unworkable form possible, and, if I am not mistaken, I think it was the very proposal made by an extremist at the Conference. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that with an equal number of elected ministers and official ministers as members of the Executive Council, it would be necessary
that these people should represent different points of view which were almost diametrical. If the elected members of the Assembly did not take the unofficial view they would immediately be discarded by the electors. They always stated that this equal number of members representing absolutely opposite points of view would result in every case in difference of opinion, and you would have the Governor stepping in with his casting vote. But we must look at this matter in the light of the great body of evidence, both from the Government of India and from the Civil Service evidence, which under cross-examination, while being strongly in favour of the proposal did not carry to my mind full conviction. The witnesses were unable to suggest, at this time of day and after all we have gone through any alternative for the proposal contained in this Bill. I have been for twenty years or more in correspondence with members of the Civil Service in India, and the last letter I had only this week was from a promient member of that service. In it the writer said that while they disliked diarchy they did not see how, now that the thing had gone so far, it was possible to substitute anything else. There appears to be a general agreement in the House that the Bill must go through, and I will therefore ask hon. Members to consider the suggestions before them and to concentrate their minds upon the Bill itself, for the more they examine it the more clearly they will see that, good or bad as diarchy may be, it is interwoven in the very woof of the Bill. I do not believe you can take diarchy out of the Bill and then pass the Bill itself. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any suggestion to make, let it be a practical one.

Colonel YATE: The Governors of the Provinces did give practical consideration to this matter.

Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, and they realised the difficulty, and the only suggestion they made was that an increase in the number of elected members really meant Home Rule and independence—a step I for one am not prepared to take. I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal instead of that in the Bill, and I think he will admit that it presents in a most dangerous form the very thing he condemns.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the purport of this Amendment has not been
quite clearly understood by the Committee. My right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Acland) treated this Amendment as though it was merely a different form of diarchy. But the Amendment is perfectly clear. Really it removes all responsibility from the Provincial legislative assemblies. The Executive Councils, if the Amendment is carried, are to be all nominated by the Governor, both the Indian Civil Service men and those selected from among the elected representatives in the legislative assembly. They are all to be selected by the Governor and put on the Executive Council to administer the affairs of the Province, but they have no responsibility whatever to the elected legislative assembly. The Governor may, in fact, select two reactionaries. He has, indeed, the whole field to select from. He may select people who are not in any sense representative of the legislative assembly or leaders of any party majority in that assembly, and they will not be responsible to that assembly. Now, the promise made in August, 1917, was that there should be a beginning of the grant of responsibility to Indian legislative assemblies. If this Amendment is carried, there will be no grant whatever of responsibility. It is true that certain lucky Indians may be chosen by the Governor and may be given personal responsibility for the conduct of certain offices, but the responsibility of the legislative assembly will be just what it is now, and that is nothing at all. We want to transfer responsibility from the Indian Civil Service—from the bureaucracy to the democracy—in India, but if this Amendment is accepted there will be no transfer of responsibility whatsoever, and, therefore, I submit that the Government cannot possibly agree to the Amendment.

Mr. BENNETT: Under Mr. Speaker's ruling I feel I must be particularly wary lest I wander into the Second Reading field. But diarchy is directly before us, thanks to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate), and until I am checked by the Chair I shall discuss it, although, in my opinion, it is essentially a Second Reading question. It may be some relief to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will only face the fact that, although diarchy is quite a scarecrow—a terrible word—it does not occur either in the Report of the Joint Committee or in the Bill itself. We hear it frequently employed by opponents of the measure, and by abusive journalists for their own purposes,
but in itself it should have no terrors. Imaginary terrors certainly have gathered around it. My hon. and gallant Friend gave us a picture of the conditions under which a dualised system of government would work. It was a terribly dark view, but nothing like so dark as some views conjured up by the imagination of the Noble Lord who has been quite a protagonist against this Bill. There are two ways of looking at it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of pious hopes that the arrangement would succeed. There are pious hopes, and there are also pious fears, and I cannot look on their estimate of the way in which it will work as otherwise than a pious fear. There is an attitude of mind which too many of our opponents have taken up in regard to this measure. By them hope is forbidden. To their mind the only possible thing is disaster. They take a dark view of the operation of the scheme in all its aspects. I maintain there is no warrant for that, and I do not think I could find a more important witness than Sir William Meyer, the late Finance Minister of the Government of India. His evidence will be found in the Blue Book. He was asked:
Do not you think that a little too much has been made of the assumption that there would be mutual antagonism between the two halves of the Government?
His answer was, "Very much." Then he was asked, "You think that has been exaggerated?" He replied:
Absolutely. I think, for instance, this whole idea of a separate purse is based on the untenable supposition that the two halves will always otherwise be at one another's throats. I think, as a matter of fact, in most cases the two halves would work quite amicably.
I will not weary the House with any further evidence of that kind. There is to be found in the Blue Book a great deal of evidence which warrants us, as cautious people, in taking a hopeful view of the way in which this scheme will work. Some eminent men I have in mind, and one very eminent man in particular, who was quite forgetful of the need for creating an atmosphere of conciliation and good feeling in relation to a scheme like this, gave us a picture of the two sides at each other's throats, and added that Ministers would be playing to the gallery. We have no right to think that the Ministers in the Indian Council will play to the gallery. I am afraid even in this country Ministers—I will not say present, but past Ministers —have played to the gallery; and if
Indian Ministers do the same thing it will only be an imitation of a not unfamiliar Western example. Let us look hopefully on this measure. Let us dismiss these monotonous prophesies of conflict and discord which we are told will prevail in these councils. We have an alternative which the hon. and gallant Member has put before us. I need scarcely say that that alternative is not new. It is not original. It is practically the scheme which was put forward by the five Governments. It has been submitted to very critical and careful examination by the Government of India, and they take the same view of the operations of that scheme as was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Acland) just now. They said that they had found dualism or diarchy in the scheme: that it was inherent in it and contained every bond that attached them to the Legislature and did not pull them apart from their official colleagues. But once the stage is reached by which any of the official members of the Government feel their obligation to the Legislature stronger than their obligations to their official colleagues, then dualism would, in fact, have established itself. The scheme confessedly contains dualism of a peculiarly unfortunate type, for the two halves of the Executive will have no separate, spheres of work and will be likely to have friction over the whole range of their work, so that the peace which some of the supporters of this scheme look for in a unified Government is very doubtful.
The great defect of the alternative which the hon. and gallant Member has submitted to the House is, first of all, that it does not develop responsibility in the least degree, and, secondly, that it is not educative. You might have the scheme in operation for five, ten, or twenty years, and at the end of that period those who have taken part in it would have made no progress, would have learnt nothing and would have, in practice, no responsibility for the work of administration and legislation. Our scheme is educative, and does develop responsibility from the very beginning. It is educative in the sense that it gives men an opportunity to show what they can do. Though one does not like to bring the sacred text into a secular discussion, the scheme does embody the idea that "Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler also over many things." We shall see whether the Indian Ministers and those who sup-
port them are faithful in a few things. I believe they will be. It is to the interest of their country that they should be. To use words with which we have become familiar, the faith that is in them will encourage them to be faithful in the tasks which are to be entrusted to them. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will support the scheme in the Bill with a, confidence that it will achieve the purpose for which it has been devised, that it will educate the people and help them forward in the path of self-government. I believe that all the dangers and evils which have been so confidently prophesied will never come to pass.

Sir J. D. REES: There never was a more classic case of giving a dog a bad name and hanging him than these dissertations upon diarchy. I cannot think from whence the expression was derived. I believe that upon some hot day, in some meeting held in some educational institution, under the impulsion of some academic influence, this term must have been born. In point of fact, if I may say so in the presence of the President of the Board of Education, we are suffering from too much education. What does it mean? It is nothing whatever but the allocation of portfolios among those available to deal with them. The objection to it is not the objection to the dual system; it is an objection to letting the Indians into half of it, and not to the division into two halves. The whole of India is a classic case of diarchy. The whole country is administered partly by the Government of India and partly by the local Governments. There is a diarchy running through the whole of it. I abhor the expression, and I am sure it arose through the introduction of some unfortunate academic influence at the impulse of some student of constitutional law. In referring to the Preamble my right hon. Friend left out one thing in his admirable speech. He did not say that the Preamble requires that "Substantial steps in this direction should now be taken." He left out the word "substantial," to which the Government and Parliament stand committed by the passing of the Second Reading. If you do not do this, there is not only no substantial step but hardly any step at all taken. If you do not put matters of administration in the hands of Ministers to deal with them in a substantial fashion, you are not making a substantial step in that direction. Nor did my right hon. Friend, in
his admirable speech, refer to this statement in the Preamble:
the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the … extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.
That means the sense of responsibility of those to whom the new powers are given. How are they to develop that sense of responsibility unless they have charge of some subjects? The Amendment would give them a finger in every pie. The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is merely to convert a nominal diarchy into an actual anarchy. That would be the result of the acceptance of the Amendment. Will the Committee allow me to suggest that if it is committed to making a democratic advance, which is perfectly obvious—how can we avoid being so when we have been saying, whether directly or not, that the War has been made to make the world safe for democracy—how can we say, "You shall have no part in it"? There is no use at all in having an advance unless it is one which concedes actual responsibility to the Ministers appointed. The Amendment actually draws the pith and substance out of the whole of the Bill, of which my hon. and gallant Friend who moved it is perfectly well aware, although he is so anxious, he says, to see self-government introduced. He would have a Bill, but not this Bill nor this Clause. Parliament has to see whether the transfer of subjects to responsible Indian Ministers is workable. It is upon that that Parliament has to act in conceding further advances in the direction of self-government. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), he said there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Governor from choosing any two subservient Indians. Why should he say that?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said that under the Amendment there was nothing to prevent it.

Sir J.D. REES: I know that the Bill does not go far enough for my hon. and gallant Friend, and that it goes too far for the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate), which shows that it probably hits the golden mean, and is a just and moderate measure. Why does the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme assume that two
Ministers will be selected by the Governor who are not really representative of advance?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the point of my remark, which was that under the Amendment the Governor could select any body of the elected members he liked as Ministers, but that he could not do that under the Bill. Under the Bill the Ministers must have the support of the Legislative Assembly, and therefore you have responsibility and responsible government. The whole difference between responsible government and irresponsible government is the difference between the Bill and the Amendment.

Sir J.D. REES: May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Report of the Committee says:
The Committee are of opinion that the Ministers selected by the Governor to advise him on a transfer of subjects should be elected members of the Legislative Council, enjoying its confidence, and capable of leading it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is exactly what I said.

Sir J. D. REES: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means, nor do I wish to deal further with the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (1, d), to add the words
but subject to rules made under the principal Act all provincial subjects other than the subjects of law, justice, and police (as defined in the Rules) shall be transferred to the administration of the Governor acting with the Minister in charge of the subject. Subjects so transferred are in this Act referred to as "transferred subjects.
I have no intention of entering into a discussion of the principle of diarchy, which has already been exhaustively discussed, nor have I any intention whatever of attempting a Second Reading speech at this stage of the Bill. The proposal I submit simply asks for a greater measure of devolution of powers to Provincial Governments. Those of us who sat on the Select Committee have heard a great deal during the last few months of the great experiment that this proposal is. It is a great experiment. There has been much speculation as to what the actual result of that experiment is going to be. Suggestions have been made again and again that under this system of dualism a certain amount of friction between the two sides of the Government is inevitable. Every mem-
ber of the Committee will agree—I am sure the Secretary of State for India will agree—that in the transitional period which must be passed through before India receives a full measure of complete self-government, it is very desirable indeed that that transitional period should not be accompanied in any way by anything that will lead to misunderstanding or ill-feeling. We want to get over the period of transition as easily as possible. I submit that in asking for Provincial autonomy—that is really what the Amendment asks for; it means the transfer of all subjects except those of law, justice and police—we are making a very reasonable demand. I would ask the Committee to consider two subjects which, at present, are included in the list of reserved subjects, but which are really vital to the well-being of India, the questions of land revenue and irrigation. Eighty per cent. of the population of India consists of people who rely upon agriculture only as their means of securing an existence, and unless there is a transference in all the Provinces of the subjects of land revenue and irrigation, it seems to me that we are giving no real control whatever to the representatives of the people in the Provinces. When the Functions Committee was considering which subjects should be transferred and which reserved, the three Indian representatives on the Committee pressed very hard indeed for the transference of these subjects. I believe the Bombay Government actually recommended a complete transfer of all the subjects which are included in my Amendment. In evidence which was submitted to the Joint Select Committee, we have proof that this demand has been made, and that there was a considerable body of opinion in India which believes it would be possible, without any danger whatever, to have complete autonomy, so far as the Provinces were concerned. I should like to quote some evidence given before the Committee by one of the representatives of the National Indian Congress. There was practical unanimity of opinion amongst all the witnesses we examined that during recent years there has been an extraordinary political awakening in India. So far as I can remember, not a single witness appeared before us who did not bear very eloquent testimony to that fact. Perhaps during the last five years the development of that political consciousness has been even more marked, but it is certain that the political awakening of India is of a very widespread character, and there
was complete unanimity of opinion amongst the witnesses regarding that. Amongst the political organisations which were represented before the Committee was the Indian National Congress, which can claim to be, perhaps, the most representative body of political opinion in the country. At all events, they were so regarded at the time the Montagu-Chelmsford Report was issued, because there is a paragraph in that Report which refers to this organisation, so that anything they may submit as evidence deserves our very careful consideration. When one of their witnesses was speaking on this very question with which my Amendment deals, he used these words. Talking about the action of the Bombay Government, he says:
I have not been able to get a copy of the Report of the Bombay Government, but as far as I understand it is not even included in the letter of the Government of India dated 5th March, which is before your Lordships to-day, and I do not know why it is not included. That Report really says that if diarchy is to be introduced all subjects except law, justice and police, and perhaps, if I mistake not, political, should be transferred to the representatives of the people. The Bombay Government is clearly of opinion that the representatives of the people should control all subjects except those I have mentioned.
Further on occurs this interesting statement from the same witness:
I do not understand why the Functions Committee should not have accepted the recommendation of the local Governments when it chooses to accept the recommendation of the local Governments in regard to franchise. I was present when Lord Southborough was examined and Lord Southborough clearly gave me the impression that he was very anxious to accept, as far as possible, the recommendations of the local Governments on the question of franchise. If that were so, why, on such an important matter as the transfer of subjects to the popular representatives, should not the recommendations of the Government of Bombay have been accepted?
The statement is there made that the Government of Bombay agreed that if they were to take just the first step in the direction of redeeming the promise which was made in August, 1917, it was imperatively necessary that in the Provinces, at all events, the representatives of the people should have a full measure of control, and the point that is brought out by the witness—that the Functions Committee was prepared to accept the recommendations of the local Governments with regard to franchise, but refused to accept the recommendations of the same Governments with regard to the division of subjects—appears to suggest a certain inconsistency in attitude and in action.
I realise the tremendous difficulty of the task that the Bill proposes to perform. There are those who fear that it goes too far. It appears to me that there is a very much greater danger of it not going far enough. I have been thinking during the discussion that there is too great a disposition to look at this question purely Irons the British point of view. There is too little disposition to look at it from the point of view of India herself. I believe if the Bill does not go far enough the net result will be the strengthening of that small band of extremist politicians in India who probably do not desire home Rule within the Empire but complete separation from the British Empire, and it is with a very full sense of the seriousness of the position and with a real desire to meet as far as possible the quite natural and legitimate aspirations and demands of the Indian people that I would ask the Secretary of State, even at this stage of the Bill, to accept the suggestion that this Amendment contains, and let the Indian people, so far as their Provincial Governments are concerned, have full and complete control. I am sure a rather niggardly policy to India, a policy which may be interpreted there as being hesitant, is a policy that is full of danger. So far as I have been able to read the history of our relations with subject peoples in different parts of the world, I have never yet come across a case where a generous policy on the part of the home Government has not always been followed by very valuable results. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not be prepared to accept this quite reasonable Amendment, which simply asks for a greater measure of devolution. Show the people of India that we trust them. I am sure we shall lose nothing by adopting that attitude, and I would ask him to give the people of India not only a chance to govern themselves completely so far as Provincial subjects are concerned, but also to proceed along constitutional lines in the further devolution of the wider political responsibilities which we hope in a very short time will be given them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment we have just disposed of lays down quite clearly that there is to be a transfer of a certain amount of responsibility for local affairs to the Provincial Legislative Assembly. This Amendment is directed towards transfer-
ring most of the matters of local administration to the Legislative Assemblies and giving them responsibility in these matters. We wish to transfer, in each of the eight great Provinces of India, all subjects of local administration, except law, justice, and police to the local legislative assemblies. The subjects which are transferred under the Bill are few and meagre. The subjects which are reserved for administration by the bureaucracy are numerous and important. These are the ones which are transferred in which the Indians can govern themselves. First of all, local self-government. That is a very important matter. It includes the whole administration of the municipal councils and of the district boards, which are really more important than the municipal councils, and any real development in India must begin from the district boards and the municipal councils, and the reform of those bodies, and giving them responsibility and full representation is the basis upon which all subsequent reforms must be built. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in starting his reforms, as it were, in midair. He is developing a great Provincial Legislative Assembly, but nothing in the Bill and nothing in the rules and regulations deals with the far more fundamental question of the constitution of the municipalities and the district boards. At present the district board is managed by a nominated chairman and a council which is largely nominated also. That must come to an end if we are to get back to the fundamental Indian conception of a national life built upon the. village community governing itself. We have the prospect, at last, under this Bill of having local self-government transferred to the Provincial Councils, and therefore those Provincial Councils will be able, in future, to restore Indian life on the old lines. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the, urgent importance, when this Act comes to be translated into actual facts in India, of having a genuine Local Government Board appointed with a Minister in charge of it. There are generally supposed to be two of these native Ministers, one takes Education and the other Public Health. There should be certainly a native Minister in charge of local government, because, to my mind, that is the most important branch to transfer.
The next branch that is transferred is public health and sanitation. That is all right, too. It would be much better looked after by the responsible Indian Ministers, because all questions of public. health and sanitation involve a great deal of interference with the private life of the Indian people, and that can obviously be done much better by people who are in. the closest touch with the electorate and are responsible to them.

Colonel JOHN WARD: Would you say that in China?

6.0 P. M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are talking of India, not China—a different country. The next question transferred is education, and there enormous opportunities are open. When you consider that a. hundred years of English rule has left India a more or less illiterate people, and even in the native States of Mysore, Travancore, and Baroda, you have a compulsory education system which we do not see in British India, the Committee will realise the importance of trans ferring education and the great step that this transfer of education is in giving a chance of better development for India. Public works are handed over, but in an emasculated form. They are handed over without the inclusion of irrigation. Irrigation, the most vital public work in India, public work on which the future of that country depends, is not handed over, but is reserved for the Indian Civil Service bureaucracy to administer. That should be altered. This Amendment that we have upon the Paper can perfectly well be rejected by the House, as no doubt it will be by the mechanical majority of the Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman could, in spite of the rejection of the Amendment, indicate in a few words to the Government of India that there ought to be, certainly in some of the Provinces, particularly in the Provinces of Bombay and Madras, the transfer of irrigation as well as other public works to the Indian Administration. Agriculture is also transferred, and all the varieties of small departments depending upon agriculture. The development of industries is handed over, in spite of the protest of the "Times," to the Indian Ministers to administer. But there, again, you have this very vital qualification, that the development of minerals is reserved to the bureaucracy, and only the development of industries is handed over
to the Indian Administration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if the development of minerals could not also be handed over, if only for this reason, that the reservation of the development of minerals gives rise in India to a large amount of misconception and misconstruction as to the attitude of Britain towards India. They have an idea, and the past has done nothing to deprive them of it, that that subject is reserved because the concession of the development of minerals would be better in the hands of Europeans. This War has done a great many things. In the first place it has built up a large amount of capitalism in India. You have in India now people like the Tartars, who are capable of developing India themselves with their own capital, and I ask that there should not be this misconception created, that the development of minerals, of mines, oil, and all these great developments that we expect to see in India in the near future, are reserved in order that they may be at the disposal of European capitalists and developers instead of being at the disposal of the Indians themselves.
I ask the Committee now to pass to the reserved subjects. Irrigation, absolutely vital to the future of India, is reserved for administration by the Indian Civil Service. It is reserved because there has been a good deal of criticism of the comparative amount of money which has been spent by the bureaucracy upon the railways and irrigation. Everyone in touch with India knows that one of their chief complaints is that too little is spent on irrigation and too much on railways. The reservation of irrigation for continued administration by the bureaucracy is, therefore, looked upon with peculiar suspicion. Even the vital question of land revenue is reserved. That ought certainly to be transferred. The land revenue system in India is based entirely not upon law, but upon administrative action. I suppose the Committee is aware that the larger proportion of Indian revenue comes from land; that there is a quinquennial or decennial reassessment of the value of land, which is made by the Deputy Commissioner, who goes round from district to district almost in a Royal progress. When he visits a village he calls up the head men and lays down the basis on which the land tax or rent is to be paid during the succeeding five or ten years. Every witness before the Committee, and every member of the com-
mittee, know perfectly well that the right way of dealing with this land revenue is to have a Land Revenue Act passed, which shall give protection to the people who have to pay this rent or tax. They should have the protection of law instead. of, as at present, being absolutely at the mercy of the decision of the Deputy-Commissioner, who has no law but merely practice to guide him in his work of making this assessment. It is of enormous importance that the power of the Deputy-Commissioner should be curtailed, and the only way to do that is to hand over the powers of collecting the land revenue to the Indian Ministers, and to make the collection subject to an. Act passed by the local Legislative Assembly. This blot upon our administration in India—even those people who have been in the Indian Civil Service. know well that the collection of land revenue is a blot on our administration—could be cured if it was subject to an. Act of Parliament of the local Legislative Assembly, instead of being purely an administrative Act by the bureaucracy.
Famine relief is reserved. It ought not to be reserved. It is one of those things which bring the intimate relations of family life into contact with inspectors and with the administration. If there was one Department which should be subject to Indian administration, it is the administration of famine relief, which involves inquisitorial inquiries into family life. I have already mentioned that the development of minerals, ought to be transferred and not reserved. Waterways could very well be transferred. Above all, I ask the Committee to observe that industrial matters are not transferred All questions affecting legislation. inspection, smoke abatement—all questions connected with welfare work are reserved for the Indian Civil Service. This question of industrial legislation ought to be transferred to Indian administrators. We have seen in the Press over and over again in the last three months references to the horrible conditions under which the factory workers in Bombay, Cawnpore, and Calcutta live and work. They work at wages of 8d. a day, and sleep twelve in a box-room about 10 feet square, where they also cook their food and live. The conditions under which the Indian factories are carried on are known to be scandalous, both as to wages and conditions. Yet this part of Indian life is reserved for the Department which is respon-
sible for these conditions to-day. The Indian Civil Service are responsible for the factory conditions in India. They could not be worse than they are, but they could be better. This Department should be transferred. More particularly ought it to be transferred when we remember that at the present time, when any factory legislation for the shortening Of hours or the improvement of conditions is brought in in India, the Indians, particularly the Indian factory owners, are apt to say that these restrictions and interferences with individual liberty are brought in, not primarily for the benefit of the Indians, but primarily for the benefit of competing Lancashire. We want to get rid of that idea. We all know perfectly well that that is not the reason why factory legislation is introduced, and not the reason why factory legislation will be introduced. We do not want that sort of thing said. Above all, we do want the Indian people themselves to look after legislation for the control and conduct of their own factories. There has been growing in India—and the evidence on the point of some of the leading witnesses before the Committee is very remarkable—during the last five years of the War, a very large civic spirit—a desire to do their duty by their own people. The welfare work done in Bombay has been a new thing, and vary well done. This is what Sir Stanley Reed, who, I think, is the owner of one of the largest newspapers in India, said on the subject:
There has arisen in India two main forces. One is the desire of Indians to take the larger share in the government of their own country, not from purely selfish motives, but with the idea of quickening the growth of those forces on which they think its national progress depends.
This is the testimony of an Englishman who has spent his life in India and who has no particular interest in painting the development of India any more rosily than it actually is, and when he points out this growth of a desire for social service and this awakening of national consciousness, we should do well to realise that that spirit is abroad and to use it for amending the existing factory conditions in India. I do hope that even though this Amendment is refused—and I quite understand that the Secretary of State for India cannot allow a single comma in this Bill to be altered lest there should have to be a Report stage—the right hon. Gentleman might bring pressure to bear
upon the most progressive Province, the Province of Bombay, to have the transference of practical legislation and of industrial matters from the Indian Civil Service to the Indian Ministers. It would be a step in the right direction. One of the things I regret most in the Bill is that we are prevented from making any changes for a period of ten years. That will not bind subsequent Governments, and it will mean that this Bill will have to be repealed or altered in material respects. It is lamentable to think that those Councils and those Provinces which indicate a real progressive spirit and a desire to work this Act harmoniously will not be able in less than ten years to have any other subjects transferred to them or to enable them to carry on this very important work of factory legislation. It is of vital importance that we should pass over these subjects to Indian administration. This Bill is looked upon in India now with well-merited hesitation and doubt. Probably they will take up the Act and try to work it, but the point to which they object most is the very limited amount of confidence shown in these Provincial Governments, in the meagre powers which are handed over, compared with the great promises made in August, 1917. The promise was made not only of representative government but also of the beginning of responsible government. The beginning of responsible government in the legislator is not visible in the Bill. There is not even a pin's point of light, and the few subjects transferred to the Provincial Legislature are hardly a worthy gift from this great nation. If we are going to confer responsible government on India let us do it as we did in the case of South Africa with a bold geste and then we shall find our courage rewarded with the confidence and friendship of the Indian people.

Mr. MONTAGU: I have listened with interest to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, and he seemed to me, as he got more and more enthusiastic in pleading his case, that he departed more and more from the studious moderation with which he opened. He began by saying, what is undoubtedly true, what nobody denies, that the powers given to Ministers under this Bill are of vital importance to the future welfare of India, giving them the opportunity if they wish of revolutionising the system of the local Government in the Provinces, in which they are
going to operate, and then he began to paint to us a picture of the things that are left out, and he ended by saying that the powers given were unworthy of this House. Is it nothing then that the whole development of that in which India stands most in need, a great system of education, is to be entrusted at once and for the first time to Indian administration? My hon. and gallant Friend attaches enormous importance, as I do, to the restoration of local government in India, and to the reformation, if it be possible, of the village system, and the creation of Local Government Departments with a Minister in charge. All that is done, and the Indian Ministers can in each Province set themselves to devise the form of local government which they will regard as most satisfactory to them. In asking for more, it is neither necessary, I submit, at the dawn of what I hope will be a new era in India, to carry on old controversies as to who is to be blamed for this or for that, nor to paint in too gloomy a way what this Bill does.
I will explain to my hon. and gallant Friend why I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. It is not that I do not sympathise of necessity with those who are in a hurry. It is simply for the reason, which some of the critics of this measure forget, that it is not given as a concession to a demand. It is based rightly or wrongly on a. principle, which I hold to be of the utmost importance, which is this—that it is not the aim of the Government to ask Parliament to surrender its trusteeship in exchange for the present Civil Service. It is the intention of the Government to ask Parliament gradually to surrender its trusteeship in favour of an Indian electorate. You have got, first, to create that electorate. It is not a question, as some of my hon. Friends think, of putting a whole stream of men upon a list. You have not then got an electorate. You have got to find out whether you can get an electorate to vote, and whether they are going to vote on the question at issue or upon religious questions or something of that kind. Now, I believe with deep conviction, though I know that my critics sitting on the opposite side below the Gangway do not, that you will create, and more quickly than they think, that real Indian, electorate, who can be given by this Parliament the trusteeship of India, but until you have done that, you are not entitled to surrender that trusteeship.
The only way you can get that electorate is to give is as it grows, something to do. That is why we commence with giving real substantial powers, powers on subjects with which they are familiar, in which they have taken a great interest, but at the same time powers which will not preclude our regarding the interests of that electorate which has not yet come into existence. The whole question of land revenue, which is the most important exception to the transfer, is the creation of an electorate. Whatever we do the first electorate will not be thoroughly representative of all classes who are interested in the land. You cannot get the peaasnts sufficiently interested at the present time. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend and colleague on the Committee, who moved the Amendment, would like to get a more representative electorate at once. So would I. But you have got to consider the existing electorate. Then you have got to consider the enormous increase you are making. You have got to consider whether you can invent the electoral machinery at once in these vast areas, and then you have got to consider whether they are ready to-day and now to safeguard their interests from the landlords and the big landowners and whether they are going to be guided by that sort of personage in the difficulties they will undertake. There is no distrust of India, but there is a jealous maintenance of the principle of which the Bill is founded, that we ask for a few years before we transfer these services until we can speak with certainty, and that there is in India a functioning electorate. My hon. and gallant Friend is very unfamiliar really with the way in which the land revenue works. I believe it to be one of the finest land systems in the world in the way in which it takes the unearned increment of the land for the State. There is much in it that we might copy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It takes the improvements.

Mr. MONTAGU: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the reason why it is so much misunderstood is that it is difficult to understand, and before we transfer we ought to codify it in a Statute. That is one of the recommendations of the Report which His Majesty's Government and the Government of India propose to adopt. Then when we have got that land revenue codified and when we have got our functioning electorate, the whole of the questions connected with the land, I hope, will
be transferred. It has often been said that diarchy is a novel system which cannot he permanent. This is the defence of it. You transfer some things at first in order that in the future, when you have created an electorate, you shall transfer the others, including the land revenue—because that I take to be the most important distinction between what my hon. Friend proposes and what we propose. There are others also, but the real necessity is to develop first of all your electorate before you can transfer these things. Take factory legislation. My hon. Friend referred to the condition of factory legislation in India to-day. No Government in the world can go far ahead of popular opinion. There is a great awakening interest in this, and I hope that it will receive a tremendous impetus and that it will be a great improvement on former conditions, but I do not want to hand over factory legislation, even if it could be separated from other things, to India until I am sure that there is in India a responsible electorate that can take an interest in the work of the Minister in charge and hold him responsible. It is because of that that we have these reservations, and it is because I hope it is going to be successful that I ask the House to accept the recommendation of the Committee. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I believe that when once this Bill is through the progress of India towards complete self-government is irresistible, and nothing can stop it. But there is one enemy, and that is if, in order to satisfy those who do not understand our endeavour, we depart from the principle on which the Bill rests and wreck the Bill by overloading it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that the whole principle of the concessions by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—will be taken on this particular Amendment. Certain hon. Members have cried out "divide." This is perhaps unusual. I have visited India, only I admit as a tourist when in the Naval Service, but, neverthelees, I have seen other Protectorates of other Powers, Dutch and French, and if one goes to these places he may see things which may be of use in these Debates, and my right hon. Friend has not spent many years to the advantage of himself and of India, in the Indian Civil Service. His speech is on the same lines as the speeches made from the Conservative benches in this House against the extension of the franchaise
to agricultural labourers. There are the same sorts of arguments and exactly the same crusted Tory arguments. In the case of the factory legislation, the factory workers in India, who are now rapidly organising themselves into trade unions, and who have been agitating by direct action, unfortunately, for improvements, are unable, we are told, to vote intelligibly; they will not function as an electorate. When we talk of democracy after all, when we get 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of our own people to the polls, and they are all. too easily led away, I fear, with catch cries, not only at the last election which returned this House, but at previous elections, I do not think that it is for us to cast too big a stone at those in India. I do beg that in this and other Amendments to be moved the Government will be generous in this matter of giving self-government in India. Is it a fact that in Lord Hardinge's dispatch of 1915 he recommended full self-government for the Provinces? That dispatch has not been published, but if it is a. fact it is a very great argument for enlarging the transfer of subjects on the lines of this Amendment.
I have an Amendment myself to include two of these things, land revenue and irrigation, in the transferred subjects. I will not deal with those two, but I would remind the Committee that the position to-day is very different in India from what it was in the late nineties. Even a few years ago it was always possible to point to Russia as the bogey. All our world politics were directed for generations to the defence of India against the encroachment of Russia on land. We could hold up to the Indian people by the ordinary method of propaganda, and no doubt justly, the fear of the Czar's Cossacks riding into the plains of India. To-day there is a Russian menace, but it is very different. There is a menace of Moscow, which is offering the fullest degree of self-determination to all the peoples of Asia and Asia Minor. I believe that we may have need of friends in India. If the transfer of these subjects, factory legislation and so forth, will make more people our friends, it may be well worth our while as an Empire. We may need all the friends we can get, and a loyal and contented India may be of vital importance to the Empire. I do not want to enter into foreign politics, but there is a menace to us from the East, and India is the half-way house. I regret that we shall have to divide on this subject. I
hope that before that is done the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that at any rate he will meet us half way and grant one or two extra subjects for the transferred list. We do not want to move the rejection of the Third Reading of this Bill, but if there are not some concessions made I fear that the Bill as it stands will have to be voted against, if only by a few, as at any rate a gesture to those in India who may be disposed to despair of the British Parliament.

Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member used the expression "We do not want to move the rejection of the Bill." For whom does he speak?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I speak for a few Members who will speak against the Bill and move its rejection if we do not get some Amendments.

Colonel J. WARD: I want to refer to the observations which have been made on the question of handing over sanitation and factory legislation. Those subjects are naturally most important, and I am afraid that if my Labour Friends thought they were giving an advantage to the people of India, especially to the lower castes, the workmen of India, by this transference, naturally they would support the proposal. Therefore I want to make a few remarks on those two points. With reference to sanitation, I am sure that those of my Friends who have been in the East know perfectly well that the ideas of sanitation in the Eastern mind and in the European mind are such in comparison that we could never dream of handing over that Department. It is necessary only to consider the lines of demarcation where the white man decides the sanitation of a district and where he does not. Then there is the question of factory legislation. My hon. Friends may not be aware that the hon. and gallant Member for East Leeds and I took this subject up in 1909–10. If you look through the OFFICIAL REPORT you will find that questions ranging over months and relating to this problem were brought before the House by the hon. Member for East Leeds and myself. What did we discover? We discovered that these factories are almost exclusively owned by Indians, who have no mortal idea of European conditions of labour, who have naturally nothing but the Eastern idea, who object to any regulations at all; and the explanation as to why more had not been done to improve the factory system
was that there was fear of the hostility of educated Indians, who largely controlled and owned these factories. It is not the fault of the Indian Government nearly so much as it is due to the native hostility of the factory owners themselves. As long as the Indian Government is responsible, this House of Commons and the Labour Members can protest, and, if necessary, insist upon improvements; but once these questions are out of our hands and handed over most likely to the Indian employers of labour, it would be inflicting a fatal blow, and would not be in the interests of decent labour conditions in India.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I think the speech of the hon. and gallant Member strengthens the demand from these benches for a Labour electorate in India. He has told us quite frankly that it is the Indian employers who would be opposed to granting the conditions that we seek to obtain for the Indian people, and the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill has admitted that the reason for withholding certain of the things that we wish to have transferred is his desire to protect the labouring people until such time as he can have a Labour electorate. We want to know why we do not establish a Labour electorate under this Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: We shall do so as fast as we possibly can.

Mr. MACLEAN: I admit that, but we want to speed you up. We wish this particular thing to be done now. There are people in India who, though they may not understand English, can vote. Why cannot they have something to assist them in fighting against the conditions which the Indian employer seeks to impose on them? I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Colonel Ward) that it is not only the particular Indian employer whom the Indian worker has to fear, but it is the Dundee employer who has mills in Dundee as well as in India, and who plays the Indian worker off against the British worker when the Dundee operative seeks increased pay or better conditions. It is the whole labour question over again, the question of the vested interest of the employer as against the workman who has to sell his labour. We want the workman to have the right not only to fight for his conditions in India, but we desire to have some particular methods adopted to enable them to establish their own conditions of work.

Major BARNES: I would like to ask one or two questions. A good deal has been said about transferred subjects. I do not find any list in the Bill itself. As far as I can gather from the Bill there is nothing which ties the Bill down to a particular list, so that I take it that it may be quite possible, within the ten years before the statutory Commission sits, to extend the list of transferred subjects. At all events, there is no obstacle in the way.

Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly.

Major BARNES: I gather from what little knowledge I have of India—it is very small indeed—that there are probably differences in the capacity of various Provinces to undertake matters of administration. I assume it is likely that where Provinces are more advanced it is not impossible that they may leave something transferred to them which may be denied to other Provinces?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. Members who have spoken from the Labour benches have not quite realised that in India the industrial population is an insignificant proportion of the whole population. Here we are accustomed to think of the industrial portion of the population as forming the bulk of our electorate. In India, even if you gave them the lowest labour franchise, if you gave it to every man in India who worked in a mill, it would still affect only an insignificant part of the electorate. The population of the towns is nothing compared with the rural population it is only in a few towns where there are these factories. Out of a total population of 315,000,000, if there are 5 per cent. dependent on industry, it is all there are. I am perfectly certain that the Secretary of State is abso-

lutely right when he says that if we want to improve the conditions of labour in this comparatively small number of factories in India, it can be done only when the general mass of the electorate, who will not be industrial, are in a position, by their experience of politics and the use of the Vote, to take part in levelling up the factory conditions of India to those of other countries. Meanwhile it is absolutely essential to retain machinery which will enable us to carry through, if necessary, against Indian opinion, the decisions of a conference which is going on in Washington to-day. I am certain that in the next few years it will be necessary for the Government of India, not merely Provinces, to pass legislation applying to the whole of India, if we are to get any advance in Indian labour conditions. I regret, from what I have seen of the literature of the Indian politicians, who have been most active in advocating constitutional changes, that there is very little said in favour of dealing with factory conditions and industrial legislation. The pleaders and the lawyers of India have only just begun to deal with these subjects. During the first few years, at any rate until the Indian voter in the villages and towns has had some experience of the effect of the vote, it is true to say that a large measure of political power will fall into the hands of a few rich educated Indians, and we have got to remember that we have no right to hand over the trusteeship of Parliament until there is the dawn of a real democracy in India.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 260.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[6.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Halias, E.
Robertson, J.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, V.
Royce, William Stapieton


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hayday, A.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, C. H.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)
Swan, J. E. C.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Tootill, Robert


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Irving, Dan
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Edwards, C. (Bedweilty)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Glanville, Harold James
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkie, Alexander


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Rattan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Tyson Wilson and Mr. Spoor.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Roberts, F.O (W. Bromwich)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Greene, Lt.-Col. W.(Hackney, N.)
Nall, Major Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greig, Colonel James William
Neal, Arthur


Adkins. Sir W. Ryland D.
Gritlen, W. G. Howard
Nelson, R. F. W. R.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hailwood, A.
Newoould, A. E.


Alien, Colonel William James
Hambro, Angus Vaidemar
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Astor, Viscountess
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)


Atkey, A. R.
Hancock, John George
Nield, Sir Herbert


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Hanna, G. B.
Oman, C. W. C.


Baldwin, Stanley
Hanson, Sir Charles
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Haslam, Lewis
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hennessy, Major G.
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Parker, James


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Pearce, Sir William


Bennett, T. J.
Hinds, John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Betterton, H. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel. J. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Blair, Major Reginald
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Perring, William George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir. J. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rae, H. Norman


Breese, Major C. E.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Briant, F.
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Briggs, Harold
Howard, Major S. G.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rees, Sir J. D.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Remer, J. B.


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Hurd, P. A.
Randall, Athelstan


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Renwick, G.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Rodger, A. K.


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Jesson, C.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Carr, W. T.
Jodrell, N. P.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Johnstone, J.
Rowlands, James


Cecil, Rt. Han. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Kidd, James
Sassoon, Sir Philip A, G. D.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
King, Commander Douglas
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Knight, Captain E. A.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner
Seager, Sir William


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Lioyd, George Butler
Shorit, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)



Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)



Courthope, Major George Loyd
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Simm, M. T.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Smith, Sir Allan


Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Lansdale, James R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lorden, John William
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Lort-Williams, J.
Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Lowe, Sir F. W.
Stewart, Gershom


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Sturrock, J. Leng.


Duncannon, Viscount
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Edge, Captain William
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macmaster, Donald
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Elliott, Lt,-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Maddocks, Henry
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Elveden, Viscount
Mallalleu, Frederick William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander Faicon, Captain M.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitcheil- (M'yht)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Manville, Edward
Townley, Maximilian G.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Tryon, Major George Clement


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. Forrest, W.
Mason, Robert
Wallace, J.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Matthews, David
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)


Galbraith, Samuel
Middlebrook, Sir William
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Gange, E. S.
Moison, Major John Elsdale
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wardle, George J.


Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Weston, Colonel John W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Glyn, Major R.
Mount, William Arthur
Wlgan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson


Geff, Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward




Wilson, Capt. A. Staniey (Hold'ness)
Wood, Majer S. Hill- (High Peak)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Woolcock, W. J. U.
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Wilson, Col. N. (Richmond, Yorks.)
Worsfold, T. Cato



Winterton, Major Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain


Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William



Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask. leave to sit again"—[Mr. Montagu]—put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, d), to insert the words
Provided that the subjects of land revenue and irrigation as defined in the Rules shall be included among the transferred subjects in all provinces in Section three of this Act.
If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept this Amendment, I should like to know the reason.

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating the arguments which I have already used, and which I am sorry did not commend themselves to the hon. and gallant Member, it is true that land revenue and irrigation in my view go together, and there is the idea of getting a rural electorate and the other matter I mentioned before we consider transfer.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, d), to insert the words
Provided that in the presidency of Bombay all subjects outer than law, justice, and police as defined in the Rules, shall be included among the transferred subjects.
7.0 P.M.
What has been said already dispenses with the necessity of saying much on this subject. The general question whether in all the Provinces the subjects which are to be transferred should be specified in the Bill has been discussed. I am confining myself to the Province of Bombay. Naturally the various Provinces in India vary, and very widely, in respect of their development. Some can be trusted with a certain amount of administration and some with a very large amount of administration. You have Assam at one end of the scale and Bombay at the other end of the scale. This distinction is thoroughly recognised in the Report of the Functions Committee, which proposes that certain subjects be transferred to the popular element in all the Legislatures in all the Provinces with the exception of Assam. On the other hand, it is proposed that certain subjects shall be transferred in Bombay and shall not be transferred in any of the other provinces. It is true that it is merely a recommendation and that
the Bill does not specify which subjects are to be transferred. I suggest, in view of the notable development in Bombay, in view of the experience of the men who have come to the top in local affairs there, in view of the comparatively much higher development of the people of that province as compared with Assam, that we should officially recognise it in the Bill and should specify, at any rate in the case of Bombay, that a larger number of subjects should be transferred. The discussion has ranged pretty fully over the general merits of the subject so that there is no necessity to go into detail, and I confine mystelf to stating in general terms the precise object of the Amendment.

Mr. MONTAGU: If I were to recommend the acceptance of this Amendment, the whole of the argument which I addressed to the Committee on the other Amendment would be gone. Bombay is one of the most progressive provinces in India, but it is not in the direction of the development of the rural electorate that that will be found. It is in the fact that in Bombay especially, all races have learned to act and work together in such harmony as is seldom, if ever, equalled, and it augurs for Bombay a very happy future and a very speedy achievement of self-government, but the factors which prevent the transfer of such subjects as my hon. Friend suggests in other provinces are equally operative in Bombay.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the Government of Bombay itself suggest and recommend that these subjects should be transferred?

Mr. MONTAGU: No; so far as my recollection goes, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that they recommended the transfer of irrigation by a majority and the reservation of land revenue by a majority.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I was impressed by the evidence before the Joint Committee against making any really wide difference between the Provinces. When I first went on to the Committee I was very much bitten with the idea that we should make experiments in certain Provinces and not in others, but on examining witnesses
on the point I found that there would be tremendous jealousy between the different Provinces. The non. Member (Mr. Scott) has said things about Assam which will be strongly resented in Assam. I particularly asked the former Chief Commissioner of Assam some questions about that Province, and he said that Assam had always hotly contested the idea that it was a more backward Province than any other Province. The valleys of Assam, where the tea planters are settled, are quite as forward as Bengal. You are up against that difficulty directly you try to differentiate between the Provinces. It is quite impossible, at any rate at the outset. It may be possible later, when we see. how the scheme works, to make some small alterations, but to make any big difference between the Provinces will only lead to endless jealousy and endless trouble between one Province and another.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for the Royton Division (Mr. Sugden), in which he proposes that certain subjects shall not be transferred but shall be reserved. That seems to me to be the policy with which we have just dealt. We cannot have it debated again, but if he likes he may move it.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to Move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
Provided, however, that, matters dealing with the welfare of labour shall be a reserved subject under the control of the Governor and ins Executive Council.
I have put down this Amendment strictly for the purpose of reserving the question of the welfare of labour, and I will support the arguments which have already been used by suggesting that this has a bearing upon our Lancashire labour. Lancashire labour has educated Indian labour industrially, and, if it is to be possible to exploit trade on the Japanese markets, then the Secretary of State should use his power to determine the council that shall dominate the question of what shall obtain in the Labour market in India and see that higher standards of conditions obtain in India, so as to make it possible for our Lancashire and Indian markets to run together, and not allow India to undersell, by its cheap labour, the proper-priced textile labour of Lancashire. If the Clause, as drafted; is passed, it will be possible for the Indian employé agricultural, mining, and textile, to ex-
ploit our enemy countries and to use the rates of exchange in obtaining goods from enemy countries to the detriment of ourselves in the European and China markets.

Mr. MONTAGU: I really do not think it is necessary for the hon. Member to press this Amendment, and it would be very dangerous to do so. There are all sorts of reserved subjects. We have just had a very interesting Debate in which it has been sought to diminish those subjects. If you put into the Statute one out of all the subjects that have to be reserved, you destroy the symmetry of the Bill. It is the intention of the Government for the present to make the welfare of Labour a reserved subject. When the reserved and transferred subjects are incorporated in Rules, they have to come to this House, and, if the Government have transferred Labour welfare, my hon. Friend will then have his opportunity.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I have one further manuscript Amendment on this subject, and it is the last that I can accept, after the previous decision of the Committee.

Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
Provided that the education of Europeans be included among the reserved subjects.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I only propose this Amendment with a view of getting an assurance as to the intentions of the Government on what I consider to be a very important subject, namely, the education of Europeans in India. I have just had a cable from India on this subject, and I can assure the Committee that it is a matter which is of vital interest to those who are engaged in the education of Europeans in India. I have had a wire from the headmaster of the Cathedral High School in Bombay, and I would like to have a statement from the Secretary of State as to the intentions of the Government. It seems to me that the question of the education of Europeans is one which should be left within the control of the Executive as at present. It is essential for the success of this Bill that we should have good will on all sides. That is eminently desirable, and I move this Amendment to get the right hon. Gentleman's assurance.

Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance that education is to be a reserved subject. I speak with great diffidence with the Minister of Education sitting beside me, but I cannot persuade myself, after a very lengthy discussion on another aspect of this important question in the Committee upstairs, that we can separate one kind of education from another. That is my first objection. My second objection is that there is a case where reservation would show distrust of the native. I should be very sorry to put into the Bill a racial qualification which does not appear in any other part. Therefore I could not possibly accept this Amendment in any form.

Sir H. CRAIK: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that to introduce this into the Bill might be dangerous, and had he merely said that I would have assented, but he went further. I understood him to say that this will not be dealt with as anything but a transferred subject.

Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, no, I did not say that; I was only answering my hon. and gallant Friend opposite.

Sir H. CRAIK: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this could not be treated as anything but a transferred subject, and I must protest most strongly against that. I am one of those in the minority of the Committee who strongly support the view that education should not be taken over as a whole, but I am quite certain that we never thought it was competent to take the schools for Europeans in India and hand them over. On page 12 of our Report we say that we have accepted the recommendations of the Functions Committee, subject to certain reservations. Words are added, I agree, about the universities, but I am quite sure that that would be a matter for further consideration.

Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I got up very hastily after I had not been paying due consideration to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. I understood him to ask that we should incorporate a separate provision for Europeans in this Act, and that I did not want to do. As I understand it, there is a hill system of European education in India that is separately organised and separately treated, and that that European education was recommended by the Committee for reservation. That I propose to adhere to. If
I have made any mistake in my argument, it was owing to the fact that I did not pay full attention to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major ENTWISTLE: In the circumstances, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: Two Amendments down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle under Lyme(Colonel Wedgwood), to leave out paragraphs (ii.) and (iii) appear to me to be hardly fresh points.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out paragraph (ii.)This raises the whole question of the contributions from the Provincial Governments to the Central Government. I want to leave this paragraph out not so much with a view to pressing it to a Division as to get a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrangements which he intends to make in the next ten years. The Committee will be aware that the Central Government of India—

The CHAIRMAN: That is what I was afraid of. That would cast on this Committee the task of discussing the Indian policy of the Secretary of State, and this is the wrong day on which to do that. When we have his salary, as we shall have under this Bill, that is the proper time to debate policy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I realise, Sir, that policy is not a question we can deal with here, but under paragraph (ii.) we provide for contributions, and what I object to is that contributions should be claimed from the Provincial Governments for the Central Government in India. The Central Government already has large sources of revenue. It has the Income Tax, which is now a considerable tax in India; it has the Salt Tax, it has the Railway Revenue, and as soon as this Act is passed it will have a large number of Import Duties, and, therefore, we have got for the Central Government a large and an increasing revenue, and I wish to enter my protest against the demand that is made that all the eight Provinces should also contribute their quota to the Central Government. I am afraid, and I know many Indians are afraid too, that if these contributions are stereotyped at their present amounts the Central Government will have, so to speak, a perpetual mortgage
on the revenues of the Provinces, while, as a matter of fact, the Central Government, has within its own fiscal ambit an ample revenue for all the Central needs. The present system of claiming contributions from the Provinces is particularly unfair on certain Provinces because these contributions are not made on a per capitabasis. The contributions are based upon what happens to be the present amount drawn from such Provinces as Madras or the United Provinces. It is notorious that the revenue taken by the Central Government from Madras and from the United Provinces, where you have two vast Provinces in which, generally speaking, all the land is owned by the State, and where the land revenue forms the bulk of the contributions to the Exchequer, is very much more than their fair share. Naturally this land revenue is looked upon by the people of the Province of Madras or the United Provinces as being the proper subject, just as rates are here, for local rather than for Imperial needs, and therefore any system which tends to perpetuate this unfair pull upon Madras and the United Provinces and which adds to the advantage of such a Province as Bengal, where we have re-established Western landlordism and consequently the State does not own the land, results in Bengal benefiting and Madras paying, because Madras has a sound system and Bengal an unsound system. I think we might legitimately, when we are making this great new start, cease to penalise those Provinces where they have a natural revenue for the advantage of those Provinces where we have set up a Zemindari system.
There are two main arguments for the Amendment. The first is that the Government of India has resources of its own which must increase as the years go on. The Import Duties alone are an enormous increasing asset in India. Beyond that, they have not any sort of Death or Succession or Transfer Duties, and all those when they come will be central taxes which will amply recompense the Government of India for any loss due to cessation of the contributions from the Provinces, and therefore I move this merely as indicating that in the next step, when we give really responsible government to the Provinces, at the same time the grants from the Provinces to the Central Government shall cease and the Central Government become
self-supporting. Anything less will lead to bitterness in the Provinces and extravagance at Delhi. There is nothing which makes people so susceptible to extravagance as unlimited resources, and if we have a clear indication that these Provincial contributions are to cease and that the taxation from the Provinces, the land revenue and all the other local taxes, are to be for local and not for central purposes, then you will have a prospect not only of the harmonious working of this Act, but of a real step forward in Indian rule and a genuine federal Government of India, in which the Provinces will be financially independent of the Central Government and the Central Government financially independent of the Provinces.

Sir J. D. REES: My hon. and gallant Friend has made a statement which it would ill-become me as regards the inequality of these contributions to contest. Many a time when I represented the Madras Presidency on the Viceroy's Council have I represented it. What I cannot understand is what advantage to my Province and to the United Provinces, which are the milch cows, will result from this Amendment. So far as I can see, absolutely none. These contributions must be fixed by somebody, and who is to do it except the Governor-General in Council?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My Amendment is only to leave out paragraph (ii), which deals with the contributions.

Sir J. D. REES: I repeat that while my hon. and gallant Friend has made a statement which it is very difficult for me to contest as regards the inequality of these contributions, it is inexplicable what advantage will result to these Provinces from taking out the provision in the Act.

Mr. MONTAGU: The inequalities of the present system are notorious. All that can be said for the scheme under this Bill is that it certainly does not make them worse.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It perpetuates them.

Mr. MONTAGU: No, it keeps them in a different way. Instead of dividing the land revenue, they propose to fix the contribution from each Province. I quite agree that it unmasks the unfairness under which Madras and the United Provinces labour. At the same time, it would be
quite impossible either to saddle the Government of India with the necessity of raising its own revenues entirely all of a sudden, or to make the Presidency of Bengal, for instance, make good the deficit of Madras at once. These inequalities must take time to redress. The views on which this procedure is based are in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. The Government of India., in their dispatch of March, suggested the appointment of a Provincial Financial Relations Committee, a proposal which has been endorsed by the Joint Committee, and we are now proposing, always assuming that this Bill goes through, immediately to appoint a Financial Relations Committee, whose first duty will be to try to find a way, most approximating to equality, of apportioning the burdens among the Provinces. It is a very difficult Committee to constitute, because, obviously, the representative of any Province is interested in the solution, but I am happy to be able to inform the Committee that Lord Meston, who has now left India, and has a unique knowledge of its financial problems, has consented to go to India, in a short time, to be Chairman, and I hope to get a Committee together that will be quite impartial as between Province and Province, and assist us in coming to the end which my hon. and gallant Friend opposite and I desire.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the argument that these contributions are not necessary, in view of the fact that the Indian Government itself could raise its own revenue without any necesary contributions whatever?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would really not like to commit myself to a view as to the taxable capacity of India. That is a subject I would wish to leave to the Government of India to decide, but, whatever the facts, they could not be decided in a day or two.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out paragraph (iii).
I move this Amendment with a view of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates the new Provincial Executive having Cabinet responsibility, or whether, as I am told is the case, the Indian Ministers will present demands for money which they will have to balance by making suggestions for additional taxa-
tion. Supposing the Education Minister wants an additional Grant of £3,000,000 in order to bring the education up to date, has he, as is the case in this country, to put that demand before a Cabinet, and secure Cabinet approval, and then transfer to the Finance Minister the necessity of raising that money in some way or other; or are we to have a diarchy, a new system, in which the Minister who has to get additional resources has, at the same time, to suggest some form of tax which shall raise the money necessary. The system that all friends of India will want to see is Cabinet responsibility. The two Indian Civil Service members of the Executive, and the two or three Ministers will, I hope, form a united Cabinet, and that when any of those Ministers has made good his case in that Cabinet for an increase of the allocation for his Department, then it will be the duty of the Cabinet as a whole to decide on the additional taxation necessary to raise their revenue. But at present I am not clear from this paragraph whether by constituting a Finance Department you mean to have one Finance Department for Bombay or Bengal, or whether you mean to have each Minister arranging for his own finance, and consequently being saddled with the opprobrium and the unpopularity of being responsible for additional taxation. It is. perfectly well known here that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education brings in an Education Bill which involves the country in some £30,000,000 of additional taxation, he does not get the unpopularity of it; it is the Government which gets the unpopularity of the expenditure of public money. Are we to understand that in India a similar Minister, bringing in similar demands for education there, would find that all his colleagues would shift their responsibility on to him, and make him the scapegoat, and be able to save their own skins at the expense of a colleague?

Mr. MONTAGU: This is not intended to deal with taxation at all. The idea of this Department, which was suggested in a Government of India dispatch, is that there is a necessity in every Province for a Department to advise the Government as to the financial result of any measure they might be prepared to undertake, and to prepare estimates. It is an Advisory Department only. The questions which my hon. and gallant Friend raises are very important questions of taxation, to which
I should be glad to give him an answer, but which I do not think come within the scope of this Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman, I presume, does not want me to repeat that speech on the Clause as a whole, and perhaps he will give me an answer now.

Mr. MONTAGU: The situation is really this. So far as I understand, the Provincial Government in India now has practically no powers of taxation. The powers of taxation are absolutely a new thing. To my mind taxation ought not to be imposed on the Provinces, except when the whole Government, after consideration of the resources at its disposal, agrees to go to the Legislatures and ask for taxation, and I take it all Budget proposals will be discussed in common between all the parties concerned.

Sir H. CRAIK: I do not wish to enter at this stage upon the point raised by my right hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, but my right hon. Friend will know that many of us, and I think I am right in saying the Government of India, are in favour of a separate purse.

Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, yes.

Sir H. CRAIK: We shall have another opportunity of discussing that. I take a very different view from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite with regard to the responsibility that will fall on the Minister who, in respect to his own work, increases the taxation. I think if a divergent view is taken by a Minister, he ought to be prepared to bear the responsibility. However, that is not a matter we need enter into now.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. OMAN: Having had eleven consequential Amendments ruled out, and not being able to speak on the subject to which I addressed myself, I will confine myself to a very few remarks on the Clause as a whole. It may be looked upon as a whole as the sanctification of diarchy. As a trained historian, perhaps I may be permitted to say that "diarchy" is a German word invented by the late professor Mommsen, and was applied first of all to the relations of the Emperors Tiberius and Augustus to the Senate, and
was probably the most loathsome: piece of political farce ever foisted an a great nation, because the Emperor was the predominant power in the so-called diarchy, and the Senate carried out the wishes of the Emperor, the penalty for lèsemajesté being relegation to a distant island or the opening of veins in baths. The word is not a happy word, and least of all happy possibly because those members of the Committee, when drawing up the Report, seemed to be quite unable to make out whether the word is spelt with a "y" or an "i." Going through the Report I find an infinite number of places where it is spelt one way and an infinite number of places where it is spelt the other way, and there does not seem to be among the individual members any general agreement. I only wish to point out how much I regret this Clause, sanctifying as it does, first of all, that racial difference, which, as we have been hearing so much, ought to be avoided. It creates a body in the Provincial Government which is purely Indian. On the other hand, it leaves a body which is Indo-British in the Governor and Council, and it is lamentable that there should have been substituted an Indian Service which is one-half Indo-British and the other half pure Indian. A member of the Joint Committee put the case very humorously in the following way: We have to consider whether we shall give the Indians a slice of every tart on the table or whether we shall give them several of the tarts whole. That, very much in a humorous form, illustrates the condition of affairs. We have given over to a purely Indian administration a great part of the provincial functions of Parliament, and it would have been very much better if the whole functions of the Government had been partly given over to Indians. I see no difficulty whatever in allowing a part of every one of these functions to be conducted by Indian Ministers or Indian officials, but the lamentable thing is that we have created a special Indian body of Ministers in the Legislature which will have charge of some things in what most precisely one would have wished to see the Indo-British Civil Service, the great old Indian Service, with its traditions, holding sway. I refer to such things as sanitation. Could anyone, after hearing the discussion this afternoon, prefer to hand over sanitation to an Indian Government Department
rather than an Indo-British Government Department, with the old traditions of the Indian Civil Service, worked both by British and Indian functionaries? Then, with regard to education, that Indian education should be handed over entirely to the Indian part of the newly-created Government seems to me deplorable. It would have been very much better to have left it under Indo-British control. There is—unfortunately, as some of us think—a great medical agitation going on in India in connection with so-called Aryavedic or indigenous medicine. It has great popularity. There is very little doubt that a great push will be made when the new Act has come in to get in the so-called indigenous medicine, which is a curious mixture of folk-lore and other things, recognised as serious medicine. That will come before, not an Indo-British medical service, but a service entirely controlled by the newly formed half of the Indian Provincial Administration. It seems to me wholly deplorable that, instead of having an Administration in which the natives, the Indian Minister, and the Indian Executive have a part in everything, we have decided to divide a fair share to all.

Colonel YATE: I should like to support what has fallen from my hon. Friend, especially in regard to education. I should also like to support the point raised by the hon. Member sitting on the bench on my right—

The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out a thing not generally known to Members of the House, that when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part," it is not open to rediscuss matters which have been decided on specific Amendments. We decided to retain paragraph (d) by a definite decision of the Committee; we must not review the decisions of the Committee in the progress of the Clause on the question before us.

Colonel YATE: The point I was endeavouring to bring out—I do not know whether the question of education has or has not been specially passed—is that we have had no information, although we have had one or two speeches on it, whether the Government of India agree to the transfer of education. So far as we are aware, the Government of India is entirely averse to this transference. So far as we know, they will oppose this transfer of education.
They simply propose that elementary education should be transferred. This is a point I made before in connection with the Bill. These Amendments which have been added have run the Bill to double its original size, yet we have no information as to what has been approved by the Government of India and what has not been approved by the Government of India. The whole Bill has been entirely altered. It has been raised from thirty to forty-eight pages. I certainly think that the thing should not go forward until we know exactly what is the opinion of the Governmnent of India as to the alterations that have been made. We are absolutely legislating in the dark, and blindly—

The CHAIRMAN: Really, I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to proceed in this way.

Clause 2 (Borrowing Powers of Local Governments)ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Revised System of Local Government in Certain Provinces.)

(1) The presidencies of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St. George, and Bombay, and the provinces known as the United Provinces, the Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, the Central Provinces, and Assam, shall each be governed, in relation to reserved subjects, by a governor in council, and in relation to transferred subjects (save as otherwise provided by this Act) by the governor acting with Ministers appointed under this Act.

The said presidencies and provinces are in this Act referred to as "governor's provinces" and the two first-named presidencies are in this Act referred to as the presidencies of Bengal and Madras.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Provinces" ["the Central Provinces"], to insert the word "Burma."
Quite a considerable amount of surprise has been occasioned by the fact that Burma has not been included within the proposals of this Bill. The only reason that the Committee give for the exclusion of Burma from this scheme is that in the case of Burma the people are a different race, and have altogether different language. I am not quite sure that it would not be possible to discover a greater divergence in British India even on these two points. At all events, we do know that the Burmese people, whilst the conditions may vary somewhat between their Provinces and the other Provinces in India, are a people in a more than ordinarily advanced
stage of development. We also know that in all essential matters they are treated by the Government of India in precisely the same way as are the other Provinces. That being so, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will indicate what are the proposals of the Government; whether it is intended to include Burma in this Bill, or whether it is intended to introduce at the earliest possible moment a Bill analogous to this one which will treat Burma by itself? If we can have some such assurance, I have no desire to press the Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: The question, of course, was raised in the Joint Committee as to whether it was possible to deal with Burma under Clause 15. It was generally felt that it was a doubtful question; and, secondly, very awkward, even if it were possible. I am one of those people who believe that Burma might make a great mistake in her own interest if she was definitely inserted formally, at this stage, in the Bill, because that would mean that, although Burma is not India, she would to harnessed to the Provinces of India and have to go their pace for ever. No one wants to suggest, by any action taken on this Bill, that Burma is to be denied a real advance towards responsible government. All that any of us knows about Burma tends to the opposite conclusion. I would ask the Secretary of State whether it is not possible to make it clear in the Bill, by means of a declaratory Amendment, that he shall have power, without further legislation, to cause a real stage in her progress to be reached in the case of Burma, not, perhaps, on exactly the same lines as the provinces of India, but without the necessity of further legislation?

Mr. MONTAGU: I quite agree with both my hon. Friends; though I do not think that my right hon. Friend's last suggestion is what Burma itself would like. What Burma is anxious for is to come to Parliament itself, and not to be left to the tender mercies either of the Secretary of State, the Government of India, or the local Government. I quite agree with the Joint Committee. Burma is not India, but Burma must get an analogous grant of self-government, a similar grant of self-government, subject to differences in the local conditions of Burma. It is not true to say that Burma is analogous. Its literary attainments are greater than any other province. It is true to say that she has not enjoyed the same develop-
ment under the Morley-Minto scheme. It is true to say that Burma is in this discussion a stage behind. The investigations did not include Burma. A scheme was put forward later than the issue of the Joint Committee's Report. It has not been dealt with in this Bill, simply because that scheme has been much canvassed and criticised by the Burmese. Before one can decide at all for or against it, one wants more time. The real case, therefore, is that Burma will get without loss of time one of two things. It will either become a Governor's Province—if that turns out to be the best solution—and in that case it would be dealt with under Clause 15; if, however, it wishes to have a different Constitution, say, from the rest of India, then we shall have to have new legislation, which will be introduced without loss of time into Parliament. It would be quite possible to make a comparison with India such as my right hon. Friend suggests. I think, so far as I am acquainted with the wishes of the Burmese, it would suit them better, if any difference is to be made, that it should be by special Act of Parliament.

Mr. G. THORNE: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to produce the legislation he suggests, and what steps, may I ask, is he going to take in order to come to a decision as to the line lie proposes? May I ask whether suggestions have not been submitted to him as to a Committee on the spot, which will secure the confidence of the Burmese, consider the whole of these suggestions, and give a Report in sufficient time to enable practical suggestions to be made on the line he has indicated? Will the Government discover whether what he proposes is in accordance with the wishes of the Burmese? Am I right in understanding that this suggestion has been made, and is the right hon. Gentleman willing to state his own views in reference to this?

Earl WINTERTON: I rather hope the Secretary of State will not agree to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and for these reasons: I thought, if I may say so, the Secretary of State dealt with the matter in a most admirable way. Surely these are too big questions to be discussed now! It is not right to ask the Secretary of State to compromise himself or the Government in any way in this matter. Might I point out the
fact which, I think, has not been brought out, that of all our possessions Burma is totally different to India. Burma has only formed part of the British Empire for thirty or forty years, while the greater part of India dealt with in this Bill has formed part of the confederation for several hundreds of years? I think great harm might be done by hon. Members discussing the question of what is going to be done to Burma in the future. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite agrees with me. We ought to leave the point at what the Secretary of State has said, and not to press the matter further.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the Noble Lord must know, and the Government, that the Burmese have long agitated for Home Rule, and that, therefore, it is almost incumbent upon us to see that Burma gets the advantages that India gets. More than that, we have heard so often that the difficulties in the way of responsible government in India rest very largely on matters of caste.

Earl WINTERTON: That is exactly what the Secretary of State said, and as to what eventually we should have to do.

8.0 P. M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As to the difference between "eventually," and anything in this Bill, well, the Noble Lord knows quite well that the word "shortly" or the words "we must lose no time" mean nothing whatever. What we do want is to get an assurance from the Secretary of State which may be either the making of Burma a part of India or may make it an independent dominion. This measure, whatever it is, should be introduced within a definite period of years, and, secondly, this measure, when introduced, should give Burma in no wise fewer transferred subjects or less responsibility than is given to the minor Indian Provinces. The temptation naturally is when people do not make any complaint to give them much less than is given to those who complain. I do not want that to happen in this case, and we want the Burmese to understand, when they get their Constitution, that although they have not made any great demonstration on the subject, we realise that they are every bit as advanced as the rest of the people of India—in fact, they are even better educated in some respects, and we believe that their standard of treatment of women is better in Burma than in India. We want the Burmese
people to believe that they are being treated on an equality with the rest of the British Empire. This is all the more important because people are so apt to contrast our Government of Burma with the American Government of the Philippines, where they have been given self-government, and it is rather a slur upon the reputation of the British Empire that we have gone more slowly than the Americans in emancipating similar races. I hope we shall get a definite assurance that a Bill will be introduced for Burma in the next Session of Parliament giving powers no less advanced than we are giving to the Indian Provinces.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This Amendment has been on the Paper for over a week, and I do not think we are unfair in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance as to when the new Constitution for Burma will be introduced. It has been stated that the reason why the Burmese have not been given this new Constitution is that there has been no violent agitation in Burma. I want to emphasise the request which has been made that the right hon. Gentleman should indicate a definite period within which a Bill would be brought forward giving a Constitution to Burma.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I am quite sure, from what the Secretary of State for India has said, that he means that Burma shall not be left out. Everything the right hon. Gentleman has said on this point shows that he means to see that Burma gets what she has been promised. I am certain that is the view of everybody in this House in every part of it. The right hon. Gentleman is one of the most overworked Ministers in this House, and lie has had an enormous mass of business to get through. Consequently it was impossible for him to deal with a Bill for Burma at the same time as this measure. I do not think that we should have Burmese in the Council of State for India. I want Burma to be kept a separate entity. Burma is one of the leading Buddhist nations in the world, and they are a very attractive people. I think we are all at one in our determination to see that Burma gets its place in the sun. It is merely a question of giving the right hon. Gentleman a fair chance of working up a businesslike scheme suitable for Burma, arid I am quite sure that on this question he means business.

Mr. MONTAGU: I think on this question I have said all that is necessary. I would invite my hon. Friends opposite to have as much confidence in the promise I have made as the Burmese people, for whom I am acting. It is obvious that I cannot give a definite promise to-night that I will introduce legislation next Session, because I am not the custodian of our Parliamentary time. I do not know who may be Secretary of State for India next year, and I have not a freehold of my position. I hope and desire not to leave this work undone, and I want to bring in a Bill next year. I am now in telegraphic communication with the Government of India upon the Burmese scheme, and I shall be very much surprised if at the end of next Session we have not passed the Bill dealing with Burma.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "governed," to insert the words "for a period of six years after the passing of this Act."
I submit that six years is a very suitable period after which to have a revision, because there will have been two Parliaments, and by that time it will be possible to form a good estimate of the work of the Ministers in the Departments over which they preside. Georgia has got a fuller Constitution even than our own, because they have adult suffrage for both sections. None of the would-be conquerors of Russia promise anything less than a Constituent Assembly elected on a universal suffrage basis. Under these circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that we should have this six-years' period when granting the Constitution to India. Might I draw attention to the analogous case of Egypt which has not a very wide consideration? Recently during the troubles there we have had the resignation of the Government, and yet we have managed to carry on. I do not think we need be afraid of giving a little more authority to the new Provinces after six years. We had a fine speech on this question by the Lord President of the Council when he was in Canada which gave great satisfaction in India, and in which he promised the widest measure of constitutional government to the people of India. In view of all these arguments I
think six years is a period long enough for these Provinces to experiment with the diarchical system of governing.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): So far as I understand this proposal, the hon. Member wishes to introduce complete responsible government in all its branches automatically at the expiration of six years to these Provinces. That is a proposal which the Government cannot accept. In the first place, I think it ought to be generally recognised that the Government of an Indian Province is extremely complex and very difficult, and to ask the Indians to qualify themselves to carry on this complicated form of government, without an adequate trial or experience would be simply to invite the possibility of a breakdown. What is the idea underlying this Bill? It is that the progress of India in the art of government should be tested carefully step by step. It is not an exorbitant or an illiberal demand to make that there should be at least three elections before the result of this great new experiment comes up for revision. May I point out that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents revision taking place before ten years, but there must be a revision at the expiration of ten years? If it be true that great progress will be made, and if it becomes obvious that the transferred subjects are being handled wisely and effectively to the satisfaction of the Indian population by the Indian Ministers, then there is no obstacle to a revision at an earlier period than ten years. The hon. and gallant Member wishes all transferred subjects to be dealt with automatically at the end of six years, and I cannot agree to that proposal. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.

Mr. SWAN: I desire to support this Amendment. Six years' experience ought to be sufficient in government to enable the Indian people to deal with these affairs themselves. The least that this country can do is to recognise the conditions under which these people are living at the present time, and I feel sure that they cannot possibly make a worse mess of things than the present rulers are doing to-day. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. We know the ruthless manner in which, in some cases, the Indian people have been exploited by their own employers, and all the speeches made in this House as to their
deplorable condition justify this Amendment and the arguments that have been put forward from these benches to extend self-government to the Indian people. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment and thus secure more time for dealing with the housing, wage, and many other problems which require better treatment than they have received in time past.

Mr. INSKIP: The hon. Member seems to Show a singular misconception of the effect of inserting these words. It will prevent any progress being made. The proper course would have been to have amended Clause 21, and to have ensured the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry at an earlier date.

Amendment negatived.

Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "after consultation with the Governor-General," and to insert instead thereof the words
by the Governor-General with the approval of His Majesty, and provided also that the said Governors must have been at the time of their appointments at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India.
This is an Amendment which really is of very considerable moment. The whole structure of Provincial Government is very largely changed by the proposals of this Bill. The arrangement by which Lieutenant Governorships have been hitherto appointed is that they have been selected by tile Governor-General from men with Fong acquaintance with India, and thoroughly conversant with the whole conditions of the Province—men who have acquired that complete facility in the language without which it is impossible for anyone to administer satisfactorily certain of the Provinces into which India is divided and especially the Punjab, the Lieutenant-Governors of which have always been men fully acquainted with the language of the country, and able to talk to the people in the vernacular, as well as being thoroughly acquainted with the condition of the country. The selection has hitherto been in the hands of the Governor-General. It is of very great importance that the Governor-General, responsible as he has been for the whole administration on the spot of India, should not have his office deprived of the dignity and status which have hitherto attached to it in regard to these appointments, which in the past have carried very great weight in the minds of the people. It is very much to
be regretted that, under this Clause, besides losing dignity and prestige, the Governor-General will also be deprived in these Provinces of the advantage of having them administered by people thoroughly acquainted with the country. The Act of 1915 protects, in Section 45, the office of Lieutenant-Governor. That official is under it to be appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of His Majesty, and he must have been at the time of appointment as least ten years in the service of the Crown in India.
Observe how this is changed. These Lieutenant-Governors are to be raised to the position of Governors of Bombay, Bengal, and Madras—officials who have hitherto been appointed by the Secretary of State from among men who have acquired some sort of position, or hope to acquire some sort of position, in politics at home. I have not the least word to say personally against politicians selected for these posts. I have known a great many of them within the last few years, and some of them have been intimate friends. But I think there are not enough among the leading politicians, and that the great advantage of confining the appointments to these Governorships to fledgling politicians is not so great as some think it to be. If you take a man who has served the minimum of ten years and has borne the burden and heat of the day, who has learnt to know the people and their language and their conditions, a man who is selected by the Governor-General on the advice of all the local experience which is open to him, surely that is a very different thing from picking out some untried officious young politician who happens to have obtained a seat in this House or, what is the alternative perhaps, some older politician whose achievements have not quite kept pace with his own ideas of advancement. Why such men should be selected for the administration of these great Provinces I fail to understand. I cannot understand the object with which this provision has been introduced. Who would be the real selectors of these young politicians? It would undoubtedly be the Whips, and other Gentlemen who have seats on the Front Bench. I do not think that they are the right people to select under political pressure the men who are to obtain the prizes which should be open to long service in India.
Moreover, you are undoubtedly diminishing the attractions and making more
arduous and difficult the conditions attaching to this, the greatest of all Civil Services ever produced—a service which has done such absolutely good work in administration. If you are to attract the same type of men who have gone into that service in the past it will not be by stripping the service of the prizes now open to it. Will it not be very trying to the man who has borne all the hardships for the last twenty or thirty years, who has done all the hard work on this service to at last find himself ousted from the object of his ambition by men who happen to be ambitious and who have not found either by their own failure of through ill-fortune the opportunities which they have desired for advance at home. You will get that most dangerous thing, the inexperienced adventurous politician, who ingratiates himself, on political grounds, with the Whips. These are the men who will be selected for these great and important positions. You will deprive the Civil Service of the prizes which have hitherto gone to it, and you will deprive India of what I consider to be the inestimable advantage of being governed by people who know their language, their life and their conditions. I know quite well there may be reasons on the other side. You may say that a new man brings fresh blood and fresh ideas who comes fresh from the benches of the House of Commons, and that although he is not necessarily a man of profound political inspiration, yet he is not liable to all the prejudices of the Service. He may be easily moved on a subject to which he is perfectly new, and of which he has no experience, but he is not able to test it and balance one thing against another. The administration in that case will not be in such safe hands as it would be in the hands of the tried members of the Indian Civil Service. I would ask the Committee to think of those who have occupied such position—Sir Alfred Lyall, the Lawrences, and the long catalogue of those men who have risen from the drudgery of the Civil Service, and who, by sacrificing the whole of their lives, made themselves a niche in the history of India, and were looked up to by those Provinces which they administered and whose memory is by those Provinces recalled with respect and even affection. You are going to hand India over to those men who have not gone through that drudgery and training, who come fresh from the benches of this House
to satisfy personal ambitions rather than to meet the necessary requirements of the administration.

Mr. FISHER: Hon. Members who have listened to the eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend will have been invited to draw the inference that members of the Indian Civil Service are henceforward, under the terms of this Bill, to be excluded from the new Governorships. That, of course, is not the intention nor is it the effect of the Clause which my right hon. Friend desires to amend. The Clause specially provides for the possible appointments of members of the Indian Civil Service to these exalted posts. The Clause says:
Provided that the Governors of the said provinces shall be appointed after consultation with the Governor-General.
Those words are expressly inserted in order to give the Governor-General an opportunity of recommending for appointment to these great responsible posts members of the Indian Civil Service who, in his opinion, are found fit to discharge these responsibilities. With everything that fell from my right hon. Friend in praise of the Indian Civil Service I am in complete agreement. With everything that fell from him with respect to the great importance of linguistic knowledge and of long administrative experience in the trying conditions of India, again I am in full accord. But I submit to the Committee that we are starting a great new experiment, when we are putting upon the Governors of these Provinces new and difficult tasks, for which life spent in the remote districts of India or even in the Secretariat of India, does not provide the best qualification, you ought to allow yourselves as much liberty as possible in the choice of those who are to fill these posts. You must remember that under the Constitution it is proposed to set up by this Bill great new responsibilities and most delicate responsibilities will be devolved upon the Governor. He will be the political chief of the Province and not only the administrative chief. He will have in effect to manage on an assembly. He will have to deal with difficult Parliamentary situations every week of his life. He will have to study the eddies of political opinion in India in a way which in the ante-political days was impossible. Those are not duties for which the administrative work of the Civil Service is specially qualified to fit a man. I do not say that great service will not continue to supply admirable Governors to these
Provinces. I think it will and I hope it will, but at, the same time I suggest to the Committee that it would be unwise to fetter ourselves at the beginning of this new development. It may be that we shall find a, quite different set of parties will be required to be Governors of Provinces under the new Parliamentary conditions than is now provided by those who have been in that distinguished service.

Sir J. D. REES: An Indian Civil servant who has been private secretary to three Governors who were not Indian Civil servants might be supposed to be somewhat in a dilemma in dealing with this Amendment. I must agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the Indian Civil Service, and I am anxious to see the Governorships or Lieutenant-Governorships of the United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, the Central Provinces and Assam filled by Indian Civil servants. At the same time, if I had been, as I have, private secretary to three Governors who were not in the Civil Service in the Province of Madras, and am to vote against them, I must be somewhat disloyal to those Governors who came out of the House of Commons or House of Lords and had never enjoyed the advantage of being members of the Indian Civil Service. In this dilemma I am considering what would be the right course to take. Having had the advantage of being a member of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons which considered this Bill, I considered then, and, on the whole, I think now, that the course recommended in the Clause is better than that suggested by the Amendment. Take the Presidency of Bengal, which exactly illustrates the case before the Committee. In my time it was a Lieutenant-Governorship, and only an Indian Civil servant like myself could get it. Now it has become a Governorship, and it has gone to my Noble Friend Lord Ronald-shay, with whom I served here for many years. Am I to say that the Presidency of Bengal has suffered by being under my Noble Friend rather than one of my fellow officers? I cannot say so. This represents one of the difficulties with which the framers of the Bill and the Joint Committee had to deal. I am greatly impressed by the fact that in future the Governorships of great Provinces in India will call for gifts of a character which were not required until now. For in-
stance, it has always been conceded, and it becomes me to think it is right, that Indian Civil servants are good administrators. I am quite willing to accept that article of faith by which I should myself profit, but at the same time it must be admitted that now that Parliamentary government is introduced in these great Provinces it is quite probable that a suitable man from this House or from the House of Lords may be even as good as an Indian Civil servant. I am prepared to admit that, and the careers of Lord Ronaldshay in Bengal, Sir George Lloyd in Bombay, and Lord Willingdon in Madras compel me to admit that there is a great deal in the appointment of the class of man whose appointment is rendered possible by the Bill as it stands, but which would not be possible under the Amendment.

Sir H. CRAIK: Yes.

Sir J. D. REES: For a Presidency, but not for the Provinces.

Sir H. CRAIK: My Amendment deals with those Provinces which are now changed from being Lieutenant-Governor's Provinces.

Sir J. D. REES: I rightly understood my right hon. Friend. Bengal, then the most populous Province in India, was a Lieutenant-Governor's Province, whereas Madras and Bombay were Governor's Provinces. Under the Bill as it is drawn it will be possible to send to the great and populous Provinces which have been under Lieutenant-Governors, who were always Indian Civil servants, men from this House or the House of Lords or elsewhere who have not been in the Indian Civil Service. The world is altered and the Indian Civil servant must alter with it, however conservative he may be in his heart. I am one of them, and I have all the prejudices of my class, but you must take into account the existing circumstances and not only the claims of a particular service. The Bill as drafted allows of the appointment of other than Indian Civil servants to these great Provinces which are equally populous, equally rich, and equally important with the old and historical Presidencies of men who were not members of the Indian Civil Service, though I hope members of the Indian Civil Service will always be appointed; but it is desirable that provision should be made for the appoint-
ment of others where necessary, and therefore I support the Bill and not the Amendment.

Mr. INSKIP: The hon. Gentleman's last sentence rather gave the answer to a great deal of his arguments, because he said he hoped members of the Indian Civil Service would always be appointed to these great posts. He is paying homage to the great service of which he was so distinguished an ornament. In very much the same way the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) in answering my right hon. Friend's argument indicated that there was no intention of appointing others outside the Indian Civil Service on a large scale, but the whole of his argument was directed to show how desirable it was that these persons should be brought in from outside the Indian Civil Service in order to fill these posts, because he said the new, responsible and delicate duties which they would have to perform require the appointment of persons trained in another school than the Indian Civil Service, who had been concerned in administration during the whole of their career. I think in the interest of India, and considered from every point of view, it is desirable that the Amendment should be accepted. It is either the intention of the Government at present to appoint members of the Civil Service to these posts or to appoint others than members of the Civil Service. To take the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the House will assume that it is in contemplation to appoint, either at first or subsequently, men who are act members of the Indian Civil Service because of the delicate and difficult duties.

Mr. FISHER: Not necessarily.

Mr. INSKIP: I assume that, but the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were directed to show how likely it is that new blood will be required for the difficult duties. It appears to me that one way of ensuring success for this measure will be to enlist the most hearty co-operation of the members of the Indian Civil Service and to see that nothing is done which will make the members of that great service think they are to perform the drudgery in connection with the Government of India and that none of the prizes of this service are to he open to them. The best way of drawing men into this service and keeping them in the service will be by saying that they are to be en-
titled, if they have the necessary gifts, according to their position, to occupy these great positions. No one will have a word to say against the qualifications of Lord Ronaldshay for the position which he occupies. By travel, experience and industry, no doubt he has well qualified himself for the position. But he acquired those qualifications by virtue of temporary acquaintance with the very problems with which members of the Indian Civil Service are acquainted by lifelong training and experience. You will not assist the Indian Civil Service to do their part under this new Bill if you say, we are going to bring in outside men because you are not trained in a school which is likely to make you. qualified for these great positions.
I think the proposal of the Amendment is desirable for another reason. I have always thought it is one of the defects of our political system to imagine that everyone is qualified at twenty-four hours notice to take up new duties for which he has no training. The constant shuffle of posts in this country, where one Minister goes from one office to another to take up a new position for which he has no particular qualifications, and for which it is supposed he may be qualified merely because he is a good Minister, is a misapprehension of the qualifications which are required for a Minister. Similarly, I think, the men who have been in India and are acquainted with its traditions, its feeling, its prejudices and its language, not because they have acquired the knowledge for the occasion, but have learnt it by lifelong identification with the interests of the people, are the men who are most likely, on the whole, to fill these posts to advantage, and once you admit that they are the men most likely to be qualified to fill these posts, then the argument that you will assist the Civil Service and draw the right men into the Civil Service by making these posts open to them is of overwhelming importance, and the preponderance of argument is in favour of the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), which I still, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, hope will be adopted by the House.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I have very considerable sympathy with this proposal, but I do not think that we can quite safely accept it. With regard to the remarks of the last speaker about people taking up work in this country at twenty-four hours' notice, there is a good deal
in that, but let us remember, with regard to the supreme position of Viceroy in India, that it has never been confined to Civil servants, and that most of the great men amongst the Viceroys have been those of people who went out from this country to India at more or less twenty-four hours' notice. Take people like Wellesley, Dalhousie, and other great names in Indian history, who went out without any previous knowledge of India. Lord Lorne, I think, is the only Viceroy since Warren Hastings who has been selected from the Civil Service. Therefore, in the supreme office we have taken people from outside, and that is the point to remember. With regard to Governors and Lieutenant-Governors of Provinces, both systems have been at work. We have seen in the position of Governors of Provinces distinguished people brought from home, and in other Provinces great men from the Indian Civil Service, men like Sir Alfred Lyall. Those who know Indian affairs best think that both systems have worked well. I should be sorry that anything should be done to give the Indian Civil servants the idea that they are to be shut out in any great number from the posts of Governors of the different Provinces, because the Indian Civil Service is one of the glories of the British Crown, and the fact that we are able to-day to come forward with this measure as a responsible Government is due to the very fine work done in the last half-century by the Indian Civil Service, and before that by officers of the East India Company. Therefore, I press upon the Government as strongly as I can that it would be most unfortunate if the idea went abroad in India from any remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be the rule rather than the exception that people would be brought from home to fill these Governorships, and that they should not go to the Indian Civil Service. That would be a misfortune. As the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) pointed out, members of that service are uneasy about the changes, and we do not wish it to be thought that the plums of the service are to be withdrawn from them. On the other hand, there is great force in what the right hon. Gentleman said, that in starting this government by diarchy there are difficulties which are complex, and there will be cases in which people experienced in directing representative institutions at home will be of
great advantage and assistance, and it would be a pity to keep them out. Although I cannot bring myself to support the Amendment, I would impress upon the Government very strongly that in administering this particular Bill it should be rather an exception than a rule that Governors should be brought from home. It is very valuable to have people of home experience, and in many cases it may be essential in starting this new system, but in the main you must rely upon the Indian Civil Service to fill these posts. We know how splendid their work has been. Let us do nothing to make the Indian Civil Service think that more of these great posts are being closed to them.

Mr. WATERSON: I would not have risen to take part in this Debate had it not been for some of the remarks made by the Mover of the Amendment. The Indian Civil Service ought to feel proud that they have in this House such a staunch supporter as the right hon. Baronet. He has put forward his plea for this protection with his usual ability. He is evidently trying to make out by the terms of his Amendment that no individual under ten years' experience is fit to be a Governor. I do not understand the logic of his position. If this House had been discussing some industrial problem. It would not have found that the ten years' limit would be brought forward as one argument for the qualification for a Governor. I wonder if, in reality, his great objection is to the young men who may be installed into these positions, and who, possessing different ideals and greater aspirations, will bring that larger freedom to India that India is seeking for! In reality, he is afraid lest these men getting into these posts will bring about something contrary to the convictions which he holds. You have to remember that this is an age of young men. No one will attempt to minimise or disparage the efforts of many hon. and right hon. Members from time to time, but this is an age when young men are making great strides, and to endeavour to check these young men who are working in the interests of this great British Empire would be disastrous as far as the Empire is concerned. I am very much afraid that this Amendment has been brought forward with the object of endeavouring to check the young ideas instead of checking the position outlined in the right hon. Baronet's speech. If this had been a commercial
proposition affecting the financial interests of hon. Members, would the same argument have been brought forward with reference to the ten years' qualification? How many commercial men have we found putting their own sons with very little experience into positions of managing directors or managers of their own commercial concerns? Surely if that line of argument is to be taken on a commercial basis, then young men could be trusted in the position of Governor of a Province. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) suggested a Commission of Inquiry into this matter.

Mr. INSKIP: I did not suggest any Commission of Inquiry on this point.

Mr. WATERSON: I thank the hon. Member for the correction. If the suggestion of a Commision of Inquiry had been put forward I was going to say that we have had sufficient inquiry, and that what is required to-day is practical results. The hon. Baronet spoke exceedingly well about the injustice that would be created towards the Indian Civil Service in the event of this Amendment not being passed. If it was on a commercial basis dealing with the business interests of Members they would not look upon the ten years' qualification as the necessary guarantee that they would get something like fruition in their business affairs. I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment. We want men with experience, who can infuse new life and new blood into India. India is asking to-day for truth and justice, and if we carry out the antiquated ideas to which she has been subjected so long, we shall have a continuation of the chaotic condition which has prevailed in our Indian Empire.

Colonel YATE: I hope sincerely that the Committee will not reject this Amendment. The sentence is a most unfortunate addition to the Bill. What does "after consultation with the Governor-General" mean? Ever since we have been in India the Governor-General has had the appointment of Lieutenant-Governors of Provinces. This is a distinct attempt on the part of the Secretary of State to rob Indian Civil servants of the fruits of their years of service in India. It will take from them all prospects of promotion. The one thing to which the Indian Civil servant looks forward is the possibility of becoming the Governor of a Province. He works for the people all his life, he works for them honestly and truly, and the
people of the Province owe everything to him. And exactly as we had in the Colonial Service tremendous complaints about Colonial Governorships going outside, so we shall have in this case. If once this system is introduced the Indian Civil Service will be destroyed for ever and a day. What man will go into the Indian Civil Service if a law is passed that he will not be allowed to rise to the top of the tree? There may be a small chance of his rising to that position, but to rob him of that chance is a great injustice. "After consultation with the Governor-General" means that the appointments will be made from England and be of a political character. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MONTAGU: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Government did not put this Clause in with the desire of doing anything unjust to the Civil Service of India, which has no greater admirer than I am myself, who have been proud to be entrusted with the charge of representing it in this House. Nor does the Clause as it stands rob the Indian Civil servants of anything. It gives them even the chance of getting to the position of Governor of a Province. What it does do—and the Clause is fully agreed between the Government and the Government of India—is to throw those positions open to the best man who can be found for the job. Many times has it been urged by Indian politicians that the Civil Service, like the Home Service here, should be excluded from political appointments. I would never consent myself. It seems to me that you ought to have the widest choice possible in every appointment you make in India to appoint the best man. My hon. Friend talks about political appointments. Does he regard Sir George Lloyd as a failure in India?

Colonel YATE: No, but I regard his as a political appointment. He would never have been appointed if he had not been a Member of this House, and therefore his was a political appointment.

Mr. MONTAGU: I agree that he has only been there a short time, but, looking back over the long list of Presidency Governors and others like his colleagues who have been in charge of Provinces, they have acquitted themselves in a way of which this House may well be proud. There is nothing in the law which pre-
vents a Civil servant being appointed to a Presidency Governorship. It is quite wrong to say that they are excluded.

Colonel YATE: How many instances can you give? I can only recall one, many years ago, of an Indian Civil servant being appointed Governor of a Presidency.

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not talking of the practice; I am talking of the law, and under the law the Indian Civil servant is eligible for the Governorship at present, and it would be a very unfortunate thing to regard the rare occasions on which that sort of appointment has been made as precluding the possibility of its being made again. I want the same arrangement to be made for the Governorships of Provinces. What you have to find is a man who would combine a knowledge of India with the capacity for government which does require a very great political sense. If you can find them in one and the same person he ought not to be excluded by the fact that he belongs to a particular category of persons. For myself, I should have said that the capacity for government, as apart from administration, is a much rarer thing than knowledge, which can always be supplied by expert advice. It would be a good thing if Indian Civil servants could occasionally be given Governorships outside of India, and it would be a good thing if Colonial Governors could occasionally get a Governorship in India. What we want to do is to shut nobody out and to try to find the best man. That is what this Clause does at present. I do not believe that in practice, at any rate for some years to come, it will make any very great difference. It is interesting to note that whenever I have seen this matter discussed in a particular Province in India, the man whom they always recommended for the Governorship of the Province is a Civil servant who happens at the moment to be the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, and it is not too much to rule out the bad system of closing particular appointments to particular categories of people.
I want nothing so much as to ensure for India in future the best Civil servants that can be got. I am sanguine enough to hope that when this great controversy is settled, and this Bill is law the relationship between the Indian politicians and the Civil servants who undertake to carry it out will have none of the bitterness
which has been the horrible lot of the unfortunate Civil servant who has done his duty with unswerving application. The very worst service that you can render to the Civil servants is to try to mark out for them a particular career merely because of what you regard as being in the interests of the Civil Service. It will not pay the Civil Service. Can there be any logical argument against appointing to the Governorship of Provinces the best men you can get? The hon. and gallant Member does not happen to trust the present Secretary of State. One day there will be a Secretary of State whom he will trust more. Do not let him legislate because of his peculiar attributations to the present incumbent of that office. Let him have more faith in Parliament. Let him remember that Parliament is the controller, and, when it is controlling, do let us hope that the Secretary of State can be trusted, after consultation with the Governor-General, to appoint the best man he can find for the job, and that he will not exclude the Civil Service on the one hand and appoint a bad man to the Governorship, or a less good man when a better man can be found elsewhere.

Colonel YATE: Is the Lieutenant-Governorship one of the reserved appointments for the Civil Service under the present covenant under which the Civil Service are serving

Mr. R. McLAREN: I support the Amendment very heartily. Some references have been made to young men. The whole object of this Amendment is to ensure that men of experience are appointed, and it is men of experience who are required. It is utterly impossible for a young man to have the necessary experience to take such an important position. A good deal has been said about bringing outsiders from this House to take charge as Governors. It must be understood that when any politician from this House goes to India, or anywhere else, he has entirely to be advised, at least for a time, by the Civil servant on the spot. So that, after all, the Indian Civil servant has to do all the work for a long time. Very often the bringing in of outsiders has been much abused. In one department I know in the country an outsider was brought in simply because of his relationship to a certain politician who used to be respected in this House. He was placed over the heads of men who knew the business. He has turned out a failure, and must be a
failure, because he does not know his business. It must not be forgotten that the Indian Civil servant requires very high qualifications; the examination is of a very high standard indeed. If in this Bill you do anything that deprives the Indian Civil servant of the incentive to reach the top of the tree, then you are doing him a very serious injustice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment, of course, raises the entire question of whether the Indian Civil Service exists for the benefit of India or whether India exists for the benefit of the Indian Civil Service. I have the greatest admiration for the Indian Civil Service, as I have for all Civil Services, but they do get it into their heads that the country exists for them instead of they for the country. The only question we have to consider is how we are to get the best Governors for these new and responsible Legislative Assemblies. We want a different type from the administrator who is trained and bred in the Indian Civil Service and whose whole career gives him a bureaucratic colour. He administers and his subordinates obey, and he obeys his superior. It is a form of machinery which is admirable for the particular work that the Indian Civil Service carries out. These new Governors are going to carry out entirely different duties. They are going to be, partly at present and wholly in future, not Governors in the old sense of the term, but constitutional Sovereigns who will take the advice of their Ministers and who will be in effect the constitutional means of carrying out the wishes of the Ministers and of the Legislative Assembly. Excellent as Civil servants are in their positions, I do not believe it is natural that they should make as great a success of the new job. I think that is obvious from an inspection of Indian history during the last few years. We have seen on the one hand Sir George Lloyd and Lord Willingdon and Lord Ronaldshay, all formerly Members of this House, who have gone to India and have made a success of Governors because they have had training in this House in constitutional methods. On the other hand, you see Sir Michael O'Dwyer, who has not been a Member of this House, and has turned the Punjab from a peaceful Province into the most difficult Province in, India. Those are the two different types. When this Bill is passed and you are to have constitutional Governors, we should be well advised to leave it to the Secretary of State and the
Governor-General to select even members of this despised House who might have very little experience of India but have great experience in constitutional practice. I would infinitely rather have my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) as a Governor in one of these Provinces, although it may be he has never been to India. A man trained in Parliament is better qualified to take up such work than a Civil servant whose training has been along other lines.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I deny that absolutely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Member who is bathed in politics in this House is better fitted to take up politics in a new country than a man who has no knowledge of politics whatever. I hope we shall leave it open to India to get the best Governor, whatever his qualification, rather than be tied to an administrator trained in the old school.

Sir H. CRAIK: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows quite well how anxious I am to meet him with regard to this Bill. I most amply recognise his conciliatory manner and method during the whole of the Joint Committee proceedings, and I am very sorry to find myself on this point in such a sharp measure of disagreement. It is necessary that I should refer to some of the speeches, and I would begin with that just delivered. As usual, that hon. Member manages to insinuate a larger amount of venom into his speeches than almost any other Member in the House. What business has he to say that it is the usual idea of the Indian Civil Service that India is made for them, and not they for India? I challenge him to prove that statement. If he is perverted enough to believe that it is true, I think no other Member of the House will agree with him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My hon. Friend must allow me to interrupt him. I never suggested it was the view of the Indian Civil Service that India was made for them. I said it was a question which Members in this House had got to put to themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!")—after the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate).

Sir H. CRAIK: I am not going to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman. I am in the recollection of the House as to the impression made by the remarks of the hon. Member. Was it necessary, in dealing
with this subject, to refer to Sir Michael O'Dwyer in words which I am quite certain would not be supported by the Secretary of State? The question of Sir Michael O'Dwyer's administration in the Punjab, during a very dangerous time, is now the subject of an inquiry, and is it a becoming thing that an hon. Member here should take the opportunity of his place here to pass sentence of condemnation on him, and to say that he reduced the Punjab from a happy and peaceful State to one of disorder? With those remarks I pass with some contempt from the hon. Gentleman to refer to another and very reasonable speech, made. by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Waterson). Why does the hon. Member think that those who are to be selected henceforth will be young men? I have known some rather decrepit and old failures in politics who have been sent out and they are not necessarily men filled with new ideals. The speech of my hon. Friend for Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson). displayed a simple and confiding faith in the selections made. If it is quite certain that the Indian Civil Service will still have these posts, why is this new Clause introduced for the first time? The hon. Member said that we had Viceroys, with great names in history. Many men would have given up the highest hopes of Cabinet office and advancement in English politics to have a position so vastly important and so great to the imagination and so filled with possibilities of great work as that of Viceroy of our great Eastern Empire. The hon. Baronet who spoke, told as, with a candour which somewhat surprised me, that he had difficulty in speaking because he had been private secretary to three English Governors who had gone out and had also belonged to the Indian Civil Service. The hon. Baronet used an argument which I have heard very frequently from him, and of which I am getting a little tired. That was that whatever his opinion was, something has happened now by the War which has changed everything. We have changed a great many things by the War, but we have not changed certain fundamental points, and one of those is that experience and knowledge of the work that you have to do, is a very great help, in doing that work. Impassioned sentences about great changes in a new world will not change some of those old-fashioned and fundamental truths which are just as true to-day as they were in the
year 1914. I must refer also to the speech of the President of the Board of Education, and I must say great as is my respect for the right hon. Gentleman, that speech left me absolutely unmoved. He said it was necessary to learn something of the great political world. But where have we any guarantee that there will be experience of the political world among those young and ambitious politicians or old and rather failing politicians who will be selected by the Whips? There is no guarantee whatever.
I come last, and with the greatest respect, to the very powerful speech, because I admit it was so, made by the Secretary of State. He knows, as I have found over and over again, how to make the best of a bad case. It is all very well to say that the Indian Civil Service will be exactly now as they were before; they will not. Many of those men went out with the distinct expectation and guarantee that certain positions were open to them, and those guarantees are done away with. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] After all, it is not for them that, I am chiefly concerned; it is because I am convinced that for India itself this laxity that you are introducing, this possibility of bringing in an untried man, may make it extremely difficult, owing to political pressure brought to bear upon the Whips, for a Secretary of State to resist what I consider to be a bad sort of appointment. I can honestly disclaim any suspicion with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's policy, and I do not think that he will accuse me of having any such suspicion. India in the past has looked to these men who have made their lives among the people and have learned their language. Go into India and live, as I have lived during long tours, with some of the Indian Civil servants, and see how they are received by the natives and how those natives, when they are in trouble, come to them as their best helpers, knowing that they will be able to explain their difficulties to them in their own language which they have learned by long experience. If any man can, he knows how to find out whether there is any trickery or chicanery, and not the young politician who goes out from these benches absolutely new to the work and selected just because there happens to be some need of giving him some political reward. I know that against the right hon. Gentleman it is hardly possible for me to hope to make any considerable impression. I
have given my honest and sincere conviction on the point, and, though I would rather my Amendment were negatived than that I should withdraw it, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that in urging this I am doing what I consider to be for the advantage of India, and that in actual fact he will try to carry out the pledge that he has given not lightly to set aside in future the claims of these old, well tried, and hardly worked, Indian Civil servants.

Colonel YATE: May I ask if it is possible to divide the Committee on my Amendment on the same subject in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "after consultation with" and insert the word "by".

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The discussion that we have had covers that Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Appointment of Ministers and council Secretaries.)

(1)The governor of a governor's province may, by notification, appoint ministers, not being members of his executive council or other officials, to administer transferred subjects, and any ministers so appointed shall hold office during his pleasure.

There may be paid to any minister so appointed in any province the same salary as is payable to a member of the executive council in that province, unless a smaller salary is provided by vote of the legislative council of the province.

(2) No minister shall hold office for a longer period than six months, unless he is or becomes an elected member of the local legislature.

(3) in relation to transferred subjects, the governor shall be guided by the advice of his ministers, unless he sees sufficient cause to dissent from their opinion, in which case he may require action to be taken otherwise than in accordance with that advice: Provided that Rules may be made under the principal Act for the temporary administration of a transferred subject where, in cases of emergency, owing to a vacancy, there is no minister in charge of the subject, by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rules.

(4) The governor of a governor's province may at his discretion appoint from among the nonofficial members of the local legislature council secretaries, who shall hold office during his pleasure, and discharge such duties in assisting members of the executive council and ministers as he may assign to them.

There shall be paid to council secretaries so appointed such salary as may be provided by vote of the legislative council.

A council secretary shall cease to hold office if he ceases for more than six months to be a member of the legislative council.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I give a ruling upon it, I should like the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Oman) to explain his Amendment in Subsection (1)—to leave out the word "during" ["during his pleasure"] and to insert instead thereof the word "under."

Mr. OMAN: I regard that as consequential.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "a" ["a member of the Executive Council"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an official."
The Clause runs:
There may be paid to any Minister so appointed in any province the same salary as is payable to a member of the executive council.
I wish to insert the words "an official" before the word "member." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will think it right to put in these words, but it makes it clearer.

Mr. MONTAGU: I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me a little more light as to the meaning of this Amendment. When I saw it upon the Paper, I thought that it was consequential on his Amendment which was defeated early in our deliberations, making the Executive Council consist partly of official members and partly of elected members. If the Executive Council were of that kind, it would be no use to have this part of the Clause as it reads, but now that Amendment has been defeated and the Executive Council is according to the existing Statute the members are paid the same salary. Therefore, if you were to say "the same salaries as are paid to the official members of the Executive Council," it would be meaningless, because all members of the Executive Council have the same salary under the existing Statute.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. OMAN: I beg to move; in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "unless a smaller salary is provided by vote of the Legislative Council of the Province," and to insert instead thereof the words
but if he be domiciled in India his salary shall, bear the same proportion to that of Members of Council domiciled in England as does that of a Member of the Council of India, domiciled in Great Britain to that of a Member domiciled in India.
It will be remembered that this is an Amendment which was suggested by the
very greatest authority. Just as members of the Council of India receive less if they are domiciled here, than members domiciled in India, so the proportion should be kept in regard to the pay of Ministers and other executive officers of these new governmental bodies in India.

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It makes very many assumptions. It assumes that if an overseas allowance is to be paid to an Indian serving in England, the same proportion of allowance is necessary for an Englishman serving in India. In the second place, the carrying of the Amendment would deprive the Legislative Council of all control over the salary of its Ministers. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it cuts at the root of the whole question of responsible government. If the Council cannot fix the salary of a Minister responsible to it, we have made a very great change in the relations between the Ministers and the Council. The Joint Committee has made the suggestion that if the Council like to fix a smaller sum for the Minister than is made to the executive councillor, it does not necessarily involve a lower status. Why not leave it there, and why not let them fix and alter the salaries of their own Ministers?

Colonel YATE: I do not think we should leave it in this nebulous state. Indian members of the Council coming to England are to have a certain salary, and I think it is equally necessary to say in this Bill that English members in India should have a certain salary. An Indian coming here is to have 50 per cent. more pay than an Englishman residing here, and therefore we should put it in the Bill that an Englishman serving in India as a member of the Council should have 50 per cent. more pay than the Indian serving in the same country. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander, and you cannot have two different rules for Indians and Europeans in this matter.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite realise what the position is. The object we all had on the Joint Committee was to ensure that the Minister in a Provincial Government should have the same status as the official side of the Government, that is to say, the executive councillor, and as it first came before our attention, we proposed that the salary of the execu-
tive councillor and the Minister should be the same. The salary of the executive councillor is fixed in the Schedule of this Bill, and it was then pointed out that the ordinary way of securing responsibility of Ministers to a Legislative Assembly was to have their salaries voted. We did not wish to enable the local Legislatures to fix the salaries of the ministers over and above those of the executive councillors, but we wished, in accordance with all Parliamentary precedents, to allow the local Legislative Councils to move to reduce the salary of a minister responsible to the Assembly, and in order to do that the Bill was framed in this form. It then occurred to us that in the interests of economy some of the Legislative Councils, while guaranteeing that the status should remain the same, would be able to find ministers who would perform the duties for a less sum than those inserted in the Schedule. It should be noted that the salaries of the executive councillors are not the same in all Provinces, and so it is quite reasonable to imagine that the salaries of ministers would not necessarily be the same in all Provinces or even bear the same proportion as the salaries of the executive councillors. So I think to attempt to run the analogy which we suggested before the Joint Committee between the Council of India here and the circumstances of the ministers in their local Governments in India is attempting to carry an analogy further than the Joint Committee ever meant it to be carried, and it is to my mind unreasonable.

Colonel YATE: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to forget that the Joint Committee may not be infallible. I think the analogy is one and the same. If the Indian members serving here are to have a higher rate of pay than the English members here, then the English members serving in India should have a higher rate of pay than the Indian members there.

Mr. MONTAGU: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that if a member of the Civil Service is serving in India he should get an overseas allowance, and the hon. Member will find that the Council of India has proceeded on that idea in fixing the new salaries. Where I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong is to find an analogy between a Civil servant serving across the seas away from his home and a minister who is to be responsible to the Legislative Council.
There there is no analogy. There the salary must be fixed by the Legislative Council, or the whole theory of responsible government disappears. His analogy is quite right, only he applies it to the wrong set of people. What he should apply it to is the public servant not responsible to any Parliament serving away from his home, and there he will find the India Office and the Government of India are in complete agreement.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "non-official," and to insert instead thereof the word "elected." It will be observed that under the Clause
The governor of a governor's province may, by notification, appoint ministers, not being members of his executive council or other officials, to administer transferred subjects, and any ministers so appointed shall hold office during his pleasure.
Therefore, the Governor's power is very strong here, and I submit that it would be better if the appointment of these Secretaries, who, I presume, will hold corresponding positions to Parliamentary Secretaries in our House, should be found among the elected members, because this would be an invaluable means of training elected members of Provincial Legislatures in holding office.

Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member is quite right in his estimate of the value of this Clause. It is intended to give an opportunity of familiarising young members of the Legislative Council with the difficulty of the work, but I do not think it would be wise to restrict the appointments to elected members. It cannot apply to officials, but in these early days there will be a certain number of members, non-official, who have been nominated, and they are equally entitled to a share of these posts. I think the preference will probably be given to elected members, but I do not want to shut out a nominated Indian prince, for example.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of this explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Qualification of 111. unbars of Local Executive Councils.)

(1) The provision in Section forty-seven of the principal Act, that two of the members of the executive council of the governor of a province
must have been for at least twelve years in the service of the Crown in India, shall have effect as though "one" were substituted for "two," and the provision in that Section that the Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in India, if resident at Calcutta, Madras, or Bombay, shall, during his continuance there, be a member of the governor's council, shall cease to have effect.

(2) Provision may be made by Rules under the principal Act as to the qualifications to be required in respect of members of the executive council of the governor of a province in any case where such provision is not made by Section forty-seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman moves this, I cannot take his subsequent Amendments which propose to modify the Sub-section.

Colonel YATE: I will take the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1). I do not understand the provisions of this Clause. I have not had time to look up the original Clause in the: principal Act to which reference is made. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what it is. If it is to reduce the numbers of the members of the Executive Council who have had experience of India from two to one, I can see no reason whatsoever for it. Perhaps he will also explain the object of taking the Commander-in-Chief out of the Council. Very often it is advisable to have a Commander-in-Chief to advise the Council. I have seen in the papers lately that the Commander-in-Chief has been able to give very great advice, and when he happens to be present it is very useful that he should be able to come in.

Mr. MONTAGU: There is really, like so many provisions of this Bill, no vice in this matter. What is really meant is this. Under the Bill a certain number of the functions of government have been transferred to Ministers, and unless this Clause is carried you will have to keep the same number of members of the Executive Council as at present. This Clause prevents the necessity of your having them if you do not want them. With regard to the Commander-in-Chief, this is a purely obsolete provision, because it dates from the time, I imagine, when he was resident in Calcutta. If his services are wanted on the Council, I can assure the Committee that nothing in this Bill will prevent his coming in to confer. But under the new regime, with a Legislative
Council which deals purely with local affairs, what is the need to preserve an obsolete provision? Therefore that is taken away.

Sir J. D. REES: When the Commanders-in-Chief were members of the Council they used to complain about the waste of time entailed in attending its meetings.

Colonel YATE: I can understand the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but I cannot see the advantage of doing away with the opportunity of the Commander-in-Chief forming part of the Council should there be occasion when it is desirable that he should attend. It seems to me it is going out of our way to prevent his attendance when his attendance might be of great use; and as for the substitution in the Clause of "one" for "two," it appears to me you will most seriously weaken the Council. I can see no possible object in the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I point out what, to my mind, is an anomaly—and in this matter I am sorry to take my stand with the hon. and gallant Member for Melton. I cannot see the reason for still keeping one member of the Executive Council, who must have served for twelve years in the service of the Crown. I see nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone who has served twelve, twenty, or twenty-five years being appointed on the Executive Council. It is hardly desirable, it seems to me, to make it necessary to appoint one who must have been twelve years in the service of the Crown. Why not appoint the best available man?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think A is any use debating the question now. What my hon. and gallant Friend is thinking about is the fact that there is a provision for one man with a service qualification, and the only way to give effect to what he wishes is to move to leave out the Clause. If this were done, the result would be there would be two men instead of one. The opportunity for any Amendment having gone by, it does not seem worth while to discuss the matter.

Clause 6 (Business of the Governor in Council and the Governor with Ministers) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Composition of Governor's Legislative Councils.)

(1) There shall be a legislative council in every governor's province, which shall consist of the members of the executive council and of members nominated or elected as provided by this Act.

The governor shall not be a member of the legislative council, but shall have the right of addressing the council, and may for that purpose require the attendance of its members.

(2) The number of members of the governors' legislative councils shall be in accordance with the table set out in the First Schedule to this Act; and of the members of each council not more than twenty per cent, shall be official members, and at least seventy per cent. shall be elected members:

Provided that—

(a)subject to the maintenance of the above proportions, Rules under the principal Act may provide for increasing the number of members of any council, as specified in that Schedule; and
(b)the governor may, for the purposes of any Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in his legislative council, nominate, in the case of Assam one person, and in the case of other provinces not more than two persons, having special knowledge or experience of the subject-matter of the Bill, and those persons shall, in relation to the Bill, have for the period for which they are nominated all the rights of members of the council, and shall be in addition to the numbers above referred to; and.
(c) members nominated to the legislative council of the Central Provinces by the governor as the result of elections held in the Assigned Districts of Berar shall be deemed to he elected members of the legislative council of the Central Provinces.

(3) The powers of a governor's legislative council may be exercised notwithstanding any vacancy in the council.

(4) Subject as aforesaid, provision may be made by rules under the principal Act as to

(a)the term of office of nominated members of governors' legislative councils, and the manner of filling casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence of members from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, resignation duly accepted, or otherwise; and
(b)the conditions under which and manner in which persons rosy be nominated as members of governors' legislative councils; and
(c) the qualification of electors, the constitution of constituencies, and the method of election for governors' legislative councils, including the number of members. to be elected by communal and other electorates, and any matters incidental or ancillary thereto; and
(d) the qualifications for being and for being nominated or elected a member of any such council; and
(e) the final decision of doubts or disputes as to the validity of any election; and
(f) the manner in which the Rules are to be carried into effect:

Provided that Rules as to any such matters as aforesaid may provide for delegating to the
local government such powers as may be specified in the Rules of making subsidiary Regulations affecting the same matters.

(5) Subject to any such Rules any person who is a ruler or subject of any State of India may be nominated as a member of a governor's legislative council.

Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "at least" ["and at least 70 per cent. shall be elected members"], and to insert instead thereof the words "not more than."
Under the arrangement in the Bill only 10 per cent. is left for non-official members for the whole Province. Surely that ought to be altered!

10.0 P. M.

Mr. OMAN: May I point out that as matters stand at present it is quite possible that 70 per cent. might come up to 99, and that "not more than" 20 per cent. of official members might be 1 per cent? With the object of getting some stabilisation and some form of preventing the absolute exclusion of official members, I propose to take 70 per cent, of elected members and leave 12 per cent. to be divided between the official and the nominated members who do not come within the category of elected members. It seems to me to be a very fair arrangement.

Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask hon. Members not to endeavour to alter the composition of these councils, which will come before us again when the Rules come up for sanction. Hon. Members will then have the opportunity of investigating as to the satisfactory or other nature of these councils. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman throws overboard at once the whole of Lord Southborough's work. Lord Southborough's Committee worked this matter out with great skill. I give the House the assurance that what we want to get in these councils is the largest possible numbers of elected members, but there must be sufficient nominated members to represent those people whom we wish represented. There must be some nominations, as suggested by the Joint Committee, for representatives of "depressed classes." There must also be a sufficient number of officials to make sure that business is properly transacted, and to make sure that the case is properly presented. Nobody knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend opposite the dislocation of business which has gone on in India during the past few years from the
necessity of having in the Councils more officials for voting purposes than are needed for other purposes. It prevented them doing the work for which they were appointed. Under this scheme every Governor will desire to nominate only as many officials as are required. The composition of these councils will be embodied in Rules which will come before this House. Then if any apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen do materialise they will be able to raise the point. For that reason I do think, when investigations are going on and consultations are proceeding with the local Governments themselves, it would be far better not to try to stereotype the forms.

Colonel YATE: That is the very point I have raised. We shall have no power to do anything when these Rules come before us.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the words "shall be elected members," to insert the words "of whom at least 60 per cent. shall be elected by territorial electorates."
When the report came out on communal representation this representation of minorities by special representatives was reduced to a minimum. There were special reports for some other classes, but the Southborough Report and the Joint Committee have between them widened enormously the scope of this special representation, and it is that against which I wish to enter my protest by moving the Amendment that the generally elected members elected by geographical constituencies should be at least 60 per cent. of those Provincial Legislatures. Observe the variety in this representation. In the first place, you have people nominated to represent the depressed classes and Indian Christians. You will have people nominated by the Government to represent those classes, and those people ought to appear on the list of general voters as well. Most of them are so poor that they will not be on the voting list, but if it was a proper franchise to include the wage earners, the depressed classes and the Indian Christians would have their interests looked after in the ordinary way, just as we look after the interests of minorities in our own constituencies.
The next class of communal representation is even worse, because it may be per-
manent. There is a special voters' list provided for Europeans, and they have a special list and special representation, and a European will have a much larger proportion of representation than anybody else in India. The Europeans and Mahomedans and Sikhs have a special list and a special representation, and so have the Anglo-Indians. Having started these different minorities with special representation, you are very likely to have that grow into a permanent vested interest for that kind of voter, and all subsequent developments of Indian self-government will perpetuate this system of the representation of minorities. We know perfectly well that to represent minorities special representation is the very worst thing for the minorities. If the Eurasians or the Sikhs were in a minority, the Member for the constituency would look after them much better than if they had two representatives of their own. The minority vote has a very great influence even in this House. Supposing there had been two or three Members representing Roman Catholies in this House, does anybody imagine that we should have had all that difficulty over the Education Bill? You can see this illustrated when you observe the activities of the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), who is a typical communal representative of Workers. in the Devonport Dockyard, and, when he speaks, everybody else yawns, and they go out of the House. The same thing will happen when these representatives get up, because every other hon. Member will know that they are only going to voice the views of a particular sect.
The principle on which English representation has been based is that the Members represent the whole of the community, and to adopt for India an entirely different system, whereby the representatives represent different sects and religion, is going back on all the principles which have made representation in the House of Commons a model for all other Parliaments in the world. It is most unfortunate that this Bill has been whittled down to establish this communal representation. It is part of the eternal desire of the governing classes in India to divide and rule. They think if you split up the people into castes you will be able to carry on the Government better. What is proposed seems not only contrary to English principles, but it is a peculiarly annoying way of treating a problem which Indians
would prefer to have treated in the ordinary way. Besides this representation of Europeans, Eurasians, Sikhs, Mahomedans and the depressed classes, you have special provision for the landlords, the universities, the chambers of commerce and industry, all of which have special representation, and, if we do not take care, this will push out the ordinary representative system from the Assemblies of India altogether.
In the case of the landlord they are also on the general list. They have the ordinary vote and also a special vote as a landlord. It is the same with the universities and the Europeans. They have votes on their own lists, and for the chambers of commerce as well. I do not think that is a fair system on which to start India. Then there is that most beautiful system of reserved seats. In the case of the Brahmins and the Mahrattas you have introduced this new system of reserved seats. This means that whoever is elected for a constituency, if he is a non-Brahmin he will be elected, but if he is a European, a Sikh, a Mahratta or a Hindu, he will not be elected, and the only person who can be elected is a non-Brahmin. I think that is a farce. The Sikhs may be gerrymandered and they may cut up the constituency, and the reserve seat is one in which there would be naturally a strong Brahmin majority, and yet it would be allocated to a non-Brahmin, and therefore all Brahmins would be disfranchised. A system like that cannot be permanent, and I think we might, instead of inventing all these fancy representations, go back to the old English principle of giving them a, wide and generous franchise.

Mr. MONTAGU: As a matter of fact, under the proposals of the Bill in every case of what my hon. Friend calls "territorial electorates" more than 60 per cent. of the total will be elected. I hope it will be quite possible to ensure that. It is important, however, to note that "territorial electorates" is a term that requires a definition to be put into the Statute, and that definition will have to be carefully considered when the occasion comes for framing the Rules. It will then come before Parliament. I therefore do not consider any useful purpose would be served by assenting to the Amendment. Nobody objects more than I do to communal representation. I believe it to be a great mistake, but there is one mistake which would be greater
and that is to get Legislative Councils in India that are not properly representative of all classes, and if communal elections are provided for temporarily in order to ensure that, I believe they are well worth having. As regards the proposal of the Joint Committee for the representation of non-Brahmins among the many arts my hon. Friend possesses that of compromise apparently is not one. I think with two evils confronting a population which is really apprehensive that it is not going to get its fair share of representation in the immediate election there are two alternatives; one is to have communal representation, and that, I think, would be a great misfortune, as it would drive the people into separate camps. It would give separate communal representation to the Brahmins who have never asked for it. The alternative is to reserve seats by agreement between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins, and that certainly is in no way analogous to the illustration advanced by the hon. and gallant Member in regard to Chester-le-Street and the election of a minority representative. Surely the hon. Member has heard of a plan which secures for the minority a certain share of the representation. I would like to ask the House with great respect whether it cannot see its way to pass this Clause without trying to put into it details of the franchise which have never yet been put into any Statute passed about India. My hon. and gallant Friend complains that there is no guarantee that these points will come before the House. But as the Bill now stands one way or the other they must do so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You told me we should see them before the Bill came before the House.

Mr. MONTAGU: I said efforts would be made, and they have been made, to secure Parliamentary control. That I think will be done. I also said I hoped that the Select Committee which considered this Bill would also consider the principle of the Rules. The Report furnished to Parliament shows that they have considered thoroughly the spirit of everything that is to be drafted into the Rules. In one way or another the Rules will come before Parliament. The only question between us is whether or not they should all come by affirmative Resolution. I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he can raise that on Clause 44, when we can discuss it and see whether these Rules
will have to have an affirmative Resolution. I submit that they are not suitable subjects for trying to incorporate them in this Clause. I earnestly suggest to the Committee that they should let us have this Clause.

Mr. SPOOR: I am very glad this Amendment has been moved, if for no other purpose than to secure from the Secretary of State such a definite pronouncement against communal representation. All of us who sat on the Joint Committee were impressed by the great conflict of evidence we had on this very thorny subject. I think I am stating the truth when I say that, taking the evidence generally, both from Indian witnesses and from British witnesses, it did seem to indicate that communal representation was going to be a decidedly reactionary step if it were enacted in any great degree in the Bill. One of the difficulties in dealing with India—I am sure it is a difficulty which every hon. Member who has considered the Indian question at all will appreciate—has been the complexity, not to say the conflict, of the religious situation there. I know that there are those who believe that the problem is almost insoluble, because of the deep gulfs that exist between one section of religious opinion and another. Yet the very fact that within quite recent times—evidently under the influence of an extraordinary wave of Nationalism—Hindu and Mahomedan have united and found common ground does seem to suggest that the religious differences which, to our Western judgment, have marked India for so long are not necessarily going to continue. I am extremely glad that the Secretary of State has been so definite in the opinion he has expressed against communal representation. The caste system in India is one which those of us who have never been to that country cannot fully appreciate; indeed, I very much doubt whether Britishers who have been resident in India for many years really understand the inwardness of that system. The evidence did tend to show that the caste system was breaking down. Certainly it was borne in upon my mind that any form of communal representation was neither desirable nor necessary, even in the early stages of this transfer of powers.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment that the only solution of this question will be the securing at the earliest possible moment of a very much wider franchise than is
suggested by the Franchise Committee, upon whose recommendations we are going to act. When we remember that out of 315,000,000 people it is proposed to enfranchise only 5,000,000—

Sir J. D. REES: It is out of 260,000,000.

Mr. SPOOR: The percentage is not seriously affected by that change. Somewhere about 2 per cent. of the population will actually be enfranchised. We are not going to secure anything like representative government or give the people in India a chance to govern themselves by any system of communal representation, whatever form it may take. Later on in these Amendments we shall have an opportunity of making suggestions with regard to widening the franchise, suggestions which, in my opinion and that of many other Members, are quite practicable, and I sincerely hope the Secretary of State will give us an opportunity, when we reach that point, of actually including within the Bill, and not leaving to Rules, important matters which will secure this wider franchise that is so very necessary. Reference has been made to the supreme necessity for getting some measure of representation for the industrial workers of India. We have been told they form a very small percentage of the workers, but it is a percentage that is growing, and it will grow a great deal more. I am sure, apart altogether from any question of political peace, it is imperatively necessary in the interests of industrial peace that industrial workers of India have a franchise which is real and which will give them an effective voice in determining the conditions of their own industry. I wish to express the pleasure I feel that my right hon. Friend has spoken so definitely against what I regard, as a democrat, as a very reactionary method of representation—communal representation—which we have unhappily to accept in some forms in connection with this transference of power. I hope one result of this discussion which will gather round the subsequent franchise proposals will be that when the Rules actually are made an honest attempt will be made to secure a very much wider franchise than is at present proposed, so that from the very beginning the people of India will have a fair start and we shall not have that bureaucratic control of India that has already been hinted at to-night. Again and
again we have been told there is a real danger of simply changing from the control of British bureaucracy to that of an Indian bureaucracy. That can only be avoided as we get a very much wider electorate in India. Give the people of India a chance to secure, in the course of years, that political education which will enable them to use their power wisely, and to bring to their country those better and happier conditions which it certainly needs at present.

Mr. OMAN: It is a pity that the facts are against the arguments of hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment. Communal representation has undoubtedly been clamoured for in the strongest way, and sectarian differences have been during the last year more bitterly general in India than at any time during the last fifty years. Last year, in the district of Arrah, only fifty miles from the. town where I was born, there was a rising of Hindoos, in which 133 Mahomedan villages were burned with enormous slaughter and every possible atrocity. Unfortunately, it was a district where there was no garrison available, and several days of most awful trouble prevailed. It is not the only sectarian trouble that has occurred during the last year. There was at Katapur a bad riot, where Mahomedans were massacred by Hindoos, and at Nellore, in the Madras Presidency, within the last few days there has been another life-losing outbreak, caused by the procession of one sect going through the quarter inhabited by another. You have to look at the fact that these sectarian differences are still very bitter, and communal representation is the only possible way out of it. I am not a very well-known person, but within the last four days I have been called upon by three separate Indians all extremely excited and wishing to demonstrate to me that communal representation was the only thing that would save their own sect or their own class from extreme oppression. One was a Madras Christian native editor. The second was a Madras non-Brahmin Hindoo. the third was a Rajput nobleman from the Bombay Presidency. They all expressed themselves in favour of the absolute necessity of protecting communal representation. Look at the evidence of Sir Michael O'Dwyer in the second volume of the Report. He says that not only is communal representation being clamoured for in the Punjab, but more clamoured for lately than ever before. You must face
the facts and remember that they are clamouring for it loudly. If you examine into the credentials you will find that those who ask for communal representation. represent some body of the people who say they did not want it turn out to be creatures of straw put up by political associations.

Colonel YATE: I am sorry to see how mistaken the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) is in his idea that caste is decreasing in India.

Mr. SPOOR: I said that was the tenour of the evidence.

Colonel YATE: The hon. Member has never been in India so far as I know. He has come under the influence of a lot of the Brahmin and other highly-educated Indians who have come over to England; men who have lost all sense of their own religion while they have been over here, who are partly Europeanised if not wholly Europeanised, and have no possible standing in their own caste and will have to go through a purification ceremony when they go back to India before they can be admitted back into their own caste. They come over here in an airy way and say that caste is decreasing, whereas every evidence shows that all the associations in India are getting their caste more and more stable, and that the influence of caste is increasing. Anybody who knows India knows that the idea which has been spread about here by these Indian gentlemen is an entire misrepresentation. We have had the hon. Member (Mr. Spoor) going about with these Indian gentle-men—

Mr. J. JONES: Why not? How dare he?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must nut interrupt. We have come here to listen to opposing opinions.

Colonel YATE: The hon. Member asks why not. The hon. Member (Mr. Spoor) was a member of the Joint Select Committee. When this Committee was set up it was to examine into and report upon two separate ideas. the idea of the Secretary of State for India on the one hand, and that of the Governors of the Provinces on the other. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was a member of that Committee. He sat there every day from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock, and in the evenings at 8 o'clock went to the
Albert Hall and other places where he held meetings under the red flag. with. these Indians and others.

Mr. J. JONES: Good old red flag!

The CHAIRMAN: This is getting away from the merits of the Amendment.

Colonel YATE: This is a very good point, because here is a member of the Committee who spends his nights—

The CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned with the person proposing the Amendment. We are concerned with the merits of the Amendment itself.

Colonel YATE: I am sorry if. I have strayed from the subject.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not do it again.

Colonel YATE: I apologise if I have dilated too long on the merits of the hon. Member (Mr. Spoor), but I would point out that the idea that caste is decreasing is incorrect. We have all these franchise arrangements. If hon. Members will take the Report of the Joint Select Committee they will see a whole page of these questions. The Secretary of State himself dilated on the question of Brahmins and non-Brahmins and the other complicated questions, and the hon. Member for Nottingham spoke on the question. I hope that I shall be in order if I recall what was said by the hon. Member 'for Nottingham, who has taken a conspicuous part on the Joint Select Committee, on the question of Brahmins and non-Brahmins?

The CHAIRMAN: No. That would not be on the merits. If we have disposed of the merits of the question let us come to a decision.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills) has put down an Amendment to insert the words "provided that in framing such rules no discrimination of sex shall be made." I would suggest that this Amendment should not come in in the place suggested.

Mr. OMAN: I have an Amendment to line 17. Is that not reached?

The CHAIRMAN: I was going to deal with that in a moment. I am suggesting to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham that where he has placed his Amendment is, not the best place for the purpose. With
his permission, I suggest that the Amendment to line 27 in the name of the hon. Member for Widnes raises that question in a better place and a better form. Where it at present stands it would fail to cover paragraph (d).

Major HILLS: The position of my Amendment was very carefully considered, and it was put down as a proviso to (c)with the expressed intention of confining it to the qualification of electors. If it is put in in the other place, it raises the much wider question of membership as well. I submit that it is a matter on which the Member in charge of an Amendment is entitled to say which course he means to adopt, and whether he means to ask the Committee to grant only a modified extension of the Act by including the women as electors, and not the larger extension by including them as members of the Legislative Council.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the very reason why I drew attention to the point. Clearly, if the Committee negatives this proposition, we cannot take the larger one. Does the hon. and gallant Member see that point?

Major HILLS: Can we take the larger one first, and then the smaller one? If not, I am bound to move my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I suggest again that line 27 is the better place. I see the point of the hon. and gallant Member. He has precedence on the Paper, and, therefore, I shall call upon him unless he gives way to the wide Amendment.

Major HILLS: I am sorry I do not feel able to give way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would not this cut out the wider Amendment which I and other hon. Members have on the Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. That is why I made the suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hills) to postpone the Amendment until to-morrow? We can get women's suffrage debated to-morrow far better than tonight.

Mr. ACLAND: May I suggest whether, after what has lately happened in this House, it is not rather hard to have to move an Amendment as to whether women should be qualified to be elected?

Major HILLS: I quite see that.

Mr. SPOOR: If the hon. and gallant Member for Durham is agreeable we are quite agreeable—those of us who have our names to the wider Amendment—to allow him to lead off with that Amendment. I agree as to the desirability of having the fullest possible discussion on women's suffrage.

Major HILLS: I can assure hon. Members opposite that it is not any personal wish to lead in the debate which makes me insist on this Amendment. I think I have the best chance of persuading the Committee to accept the smaller Amendment, and it is in that spirit I appeal to the Committee. Unless you tell me that I am not in order, or exercise your power to hold over the Amendment, I feel obliged to insist on dividing the Committee on the Amendment.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Would it not be possible for the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hills) to move an Amendment to that to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) limiting the qualification to be electors, and then when a decision had been taken on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment we could have the discussion, which I think the House desires, on the plain issue as to whether women are to be qualified as voters in India or not.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be a possible method.

Major HILLS: I have not considered that Point. I take it the House could vote on the smaller Amendment first and then on the larger one.

Mr. E. WOOD: The larger Amendment might be defeated and then it would not be open to my hon. and gallant Friend to move.

The CHAIRMAN: No, that would not be the case, because it would be an amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. RENDALL: Why is it not possible for the hon. Member to move his Amendment about suffrage and then to have the other Amendment moved as to candidates?

Major HILLS: It seems to me if I adopted the suggestion to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Member for Widnes, I would have against me those opposed to
the proposal altogether and those in favour of the wider Amendment. Is there not some way whereby we could obtain the decision of the Committee on the two questions, first on the narrower question whether women should be entitled to vote, and then the bigger question as to whether or not they should be eligible to be elected.

The CHAIRMAN: I think if the Committee negatives the narrower question we must take that as a decision. May I make a suggestion? I have a manuscript Amendment by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Oman) at the same place. If we dispose of that to-night, then the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment would remain upon the Paper, and perhaps he could have some consultation about it before we approach it.

Mr. OMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words
and such Rules shall provide for the election by communal electorates of members belonging to all important sects and communities, such as Sikhs in the Punjab, Mahomedans in all provinces, Christians wherever they shall amount to 5 per cent. of the total population, non-Brahmins in the Madras Presidency, Mahrattas in the Bombay Presidency, and Europeans in Bengal; and also for the representation, whether by communal election or by nomination, of the 'depressed classes' of Hindus in all provinces.
This is a very simple Amendment which I am in hopes the right hon. Gentleman may possibly accept. It is merely to put into the text of the Bill that which has already been promised us in the report.

Mr. ACLAND: May I express the hope that the Secretary of State will not accept this Amendment. I cannot conceive anything which could give rise to more difficulty. Take the words "such as." You have to provide for the representation of minorities "such as" so and so. That is extraordinarily difficult. It is utterly unnecessary to put in anything of the kind, and to use words "such as" is an extraordinary way of legislating.

Mr. MONTAGU: I take the hon. Member's proposition to be rather by way of a joke. He wants me again to express my objection to communal election be cause he asks me to assent to an Amendment contrary to all the arguments I have used. It is. a little hard to expect that this Committee should put into statutory form the whole governing principles of the Indian electorate on a manuscript Amendment which I do not
believe has been seen by any Parliamentary draftsman, and which may contain words quite impossible to translate into practice. This House has to make up its mind. Is it going, for the-first time in the history of India, to insist upon having a franchise in a. Statute, or is it prepared to accept the-course which has been laid down in every Statute that we have had up to now, that it shall be laid down in rules out of the Statute? The trouble is that we lave always—I am the worst offender—to make the same speech. This is a portmanteau attempt to get into the Statute a large number of provisions which it is intended to provide in some form or other, because the hon. Member knows that I would never assent to communal elections for non-Brahmins.

Amendment negatived.

Committee report Progress; to sit again. To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

BACON.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. REMER: In calling attention to the question of bacon, which was referred to at Question Time, I believe I am bringing before the House one of the grossest scandals that has ever been connected with a Government Department. I have discussed this matter with many people who are members of the trade, and they tell me that the grossest inefficiency has been shown to them, and we see the result in the vile and rotten bacon which is served up at our breakfast tables every morning. In reply to a supplementary question the Food Controller told us that he had an Advisory Committee, but that he did not necessarily take advantage of their advice. As a matter of fact, when he controlled bacon in August last, he did not consult them at all. He passed over the advice given by them afterwards, and
events have proved that it has been absolutely borne out by facts. He also states in the reply that there was no deterioration in the quality or depreciation in the value of bacon which can be in any way attributed to the renewal of the control. I should like to say that the answer which has been given to him in this respect by his officials is not borne out by the facts. As a matter of fact, the deterioration in quality and value of the bacon, I am informed by members of the trade, will amount to the considerable sum of anything between £10,000,000 and £20,000,000. I dare say that he will state that that bacon was not purchased by the Government, and that it was purchased by private traders, but the fact remains, if the control had not been put on to bacon again, that bacon would not have gone bad, or, if it had, the loss through deterioration would have fallen upon the trade and not on the Government. I am satisfied that by controlling bacon he has saved the American packing houses from losing many millions. The question of increased prices was also raised in the questions I addressed to him. He stated in his reply that it was to pre-
vent an increase in price. That is not borne out by the facts. The price of hogs, as he was told by his advisers at the time, was on the point of breaking, He introduced control on the top of the market. Therefore, when the fall came, the loss fell upon the Government instead of on the packing houses in America and the private traders. As a matter of fact, hogs in America fell from 40 cents to something like 20 cents, and people in the trade tell me that it is the invariable rule when hogs fall in America for the price of bacon to fall in sympathy, but in this case the Food Controller kept his price at the old level, and, therefore, in spite of the fact that the bacon was bad, he kept up the price at an absurd and ridiculous figure. During this autumn the price of bacon would have come down to 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. in the 1b. if it had been left in the hands of private traders,

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being found present,

The House was adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven of the clock till Tomorrow.